Skip to main content

Full text of "Select treatises of S. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in controversy with the Arians"

See other formats















CHAP.  I. 

The  complaint  of  the  Arians  against  the  Nicene  Council ;  their  fickleness  ; 
they  are  like  Jews ;  their  employment  of  force  instead  of  reason.     Page  1 


Ignorant  as  well  as  irreligious  to  attempt  to  reverse  an  Ecumenical  Council ; 
proceedings  at  Nicaea;  Eusebians  then  signed  what  they  now  complain 
of;  on  the  unanimity  of  true  teachers,  and  the  process  of  tradition ;  changes 
of  the  Arians.  5 


Two  senses  of  the  word,  1.  adoptive,  2.  substantial.  Attempts  of  Arians  to 
find  a  third  meaning  between  these ;  e.  g.  that  our  Lord  alone  was  created 
immediately  by  God ;  Asterius's  view ;  or  that  our  Lord  alone  partakes 
the  Father.  The  second  and  true  sense;  God  begets  as  He  makes,  really ; 
though  His  creation  and  generation  not  like  man's ;  His  generation  inde- 
pendent of  time;  generation  implies  an  internal,  and  therefore  an  eternal, 
act  in  God;  explanation  of  Prov.  8,  22.  10 




Power,  Word  or  Reason,  and  Wisdom,  the  names  of  the  Son,  imply 
eternity;  as  well  as  the  Father's  title  of  Fountain.  The  Arians  reply 
that  these  do  not  formally  belong  to  the  essence  of  the  Sou,  but  are 
names  given  Him;  that  God  has  many  words,  powers,  &c.  Why  there 
is  but  one  Son,  Word,  &c.  All  the  titles  of  the  Son  coincide  in  Him.  24 

CHAP.  V. 


Objection  that  the  phrases  are  not  scriptural ;  we  ought  to  look  at  the  sense 
more  than  the  wording.  Evasion  of  the  Eusebians  as  to  the  phrase  "  of 
God,"  which  is  in  Scripture;  their  evasion  of  all  explanations  but  those 
which  the  Council  selected;  which  were  intended  to  negative  the  Arian 
formulae.  Protest  against  their  conveying  any  material  sense.  30 


Theognostus;  Dionysius  of  Alexandria ;  Dionysius  of  Rome ;  Origen.     43 


This  term  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Arians ;  and  why ;  three  senses  of  it. 
A  fourth  sense.  Ingenerate  denotes  God  in  contrast  to  His  creatures, 
not  to  His  Son;  Father  the  scriptural  title  instead  ;  Conclusion.  51 


Letter  of  Eusebius  of  Csesarea  to  the  People  of  his  Diocese.  59 

NOTE  ON  p.  61. 

On  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ig  Irigat  uvrtffvdio'tut  *  tlrlas  in  the  Nicene 
Anathema.  66 




CHAP.  I. 

Reasons  why  two  Councils  were  called.  Inconsistency  and  folly  of  calling 
any;  and  of  the  style  of  the  Arian  formularies;  occasion  of  the  Nicene 
Councils.  Proceedings  at  Ariminuin ;  Letter  of  the  Council  to  Constantius ; 
its  decree.  Proceedings  at  Seleucia ;  reflections  on  the  conduct  of  the 
Arians.  73 



Arius's  own  sentiments;  his  Thalia  and  Letter  to  S.  Alexander.  Corrections 
by  Eusehius  and  others ;  extracts  from  the  works  of  Asterius.  Letter  of 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  First  Creed  of  Ariaus  at  the  Dedication  at 
Antioch;  second,  Lucian's  on  the  same  occasion;  third,  by  Theophronius  ; 
fourth,  sent  into  Gaul  to  Constans;  fifth,  the  Macrostich  sent  into  Italy; 
sixth,  at  Sirmium ;  seventh,  at  the  same  place ;  and  eighth  also,  as  intro- 
duced above  in  Chapter  i ;  ninth,  at  Seleucia ;  tenth,  at  Constantinople  ; 
eleventh,  at  Antioch.  93 



We  must  look  at  the  sense  not  the  wording.  The  offence  excited  is  at  the 
sense;  meaning  of  the  Symbols;  the  question  of  their  not  being  in 
Scripture.  Those  who  hesitate  only  at  the  latter  of  the  two,  are  not  to  be 
considered  Arians.  Reasons  why  "  One  in  substance"  better  than  "  Like 
in  substance,"  yet  the  latter  may  be  interpreted  in  a  good  sense.  Ex- 
planation of  the  rejection  of  "  One  in  substance"  by  the  Council  which 
condemned  Samosatene ;  use  of  the  word  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria. 
Parallel  variation  in  the  use  of  "  Ingenerate ;"  quotation  from  S.  Ignatius 
and  another.  Reasons  for  using  "  One  in  substance  ;"  objections  to  it ; 
examination  of  the  word  itself.  Further  documents  of  the  Council  of 
Ariminum  129 

Concerning  the  Confessions  at  Sirmium.  160 

NOTE  ON  PAGE  147. 

On  the  alleged  Confession  of  Antioch  against  Paul  of  Samosata.  165 

b  2 




CHAP.  I. 


Reason  for  writing ;  certain  persons  indifferent  about  Arianism ;  Arians  are 
not  Christians,  because  sectaries  always  take  the  name  of  their  founder. 



Arius  maintains  that  God  became  a  Father,  and  the  Son  was  not  always  f 
the  Son  out  of  nothing;  once  He  was  not;  He  was  not  before  His  gene- 
ration; He  was  created  ;  named  Wisdom  and  Word  after  God's  attributes; 
made  that  He  might  make  us  ;  one  out  of  many  powers  of  God ;  alterable ; 
exalted  on  God's  foreknowledge  of  what  He  was  to  be ;  not  very  God ;  but 
called  so,  as  others,  by  participation;  foreign  in  sub  stance  from  the  Father; 
does  not  know  or  see  the  Father;  does  not  know  Himself.  185 


The  Arians  affect  Scripture  language,  but  their  doctrine  is  new,  as  well  as 
unscriptural.  Statement  of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  that  the  Son  is  proper 
to  the  Father's  Substance,  and  eternal.  Restatement  of  Arianism  in 
contrast,  that  He  is  a  creature  with  a  beginning.  The  controversy  comes 
to  this  issue,  whether  one  whom  we  are  to  believe  in  as  God,  can  be  so 
in  name  only,  and  is  merely  a  creature.  What  pretence  then  is  there  for 
being  indifferent  in  the  controversy?  The  Arians  rely  on  state  patronage, 
and  dare  not  avow  their  tenets.  189 



These  attributes,  being  the  points  in  dispute,  are  first  proved  by  direct  texts 
of  Scripture.  v  Concerning  the  "  Eternal  Power"  of  God  in  Rom.  i.  20. 
which  is  shewn  to  mean  the  Son.  Remarks  on  the  Arian  formula, 
11  Once  the  Son  was  not,"  its  supporters  not  daring  to  speak  of  "  a  time 
when  the  Son  was  not."  195 


CHAP.  V. 


'he  objection,  that  the  Son's  eternity  makes  Him  co-ordinate  with  the 
Father,  introduces  the  subject  of  His  Divine  Sonship,  as  a  second  proof 
of  His  eternity.  The  word  Son  is  used  in  a  transcendant,  but  is  to  be  un- 
derstood in  a  real  sense.  Since  all  things  partake  of  the  Father  in  par- 
taking of  the  Son,  He  is  the  whole  participation  of  the  Father,  that  is, 
He  is  the  Son  by  nature;  for  to  be  wholly  participated  is  to  beget.  200 


Third  proof  of  the  Son's  eternity,  viz.  from  other  titles  indicative  of  His 
consubstantiality ;  as  the  Creator ;  as  One  of  the  Blessed  Trinity ;  as 
Wisdom;  as  Word;  as  Image.  But  if  the  Son  be  a  perfect  Image  of 
the  Father,  why  is  He  not  a  Father  also  ?  because  God,  being  perfect, 
is  not  the  origin  of  a  race.  The  Father  only  a  Father,  because  the 
Only  Father ;  the  Son  only  a  Son  because  the  Only  Son.  Men  are  not 
really  fathers  and  really  sons,  but  shadows  of  the  True.  The  Son  does 
not  become  a  Father,  because  He  has  received  from  the  Father,  to  be 
immutable  and  ever  the  same.  205 


Whether,  in  the  generation  of  the  Son,  God  made  One  that  was  already,  or 
One  that  was  not.  213 



Whether  we  may  decide  the  question  by  the  parallel  of  human  sons,  which  are 
born  later  than  their  parents.  No,  for  the  force  of  the  analogy  lies  in  the 
idea  of  connaturality.  Time  is  not  involved  in  the  idea  of  Son,  but  is 
adventitious  to  it,  and  does  not  attach  to  God,  because  He  is  without 
parts  and  passions.  The  titles  Word  and  Wisdom  guard  our  thoughts  of 
Him  and  His  Son  from  this  misconception.  God  not  a  Father,  as  a  Creator, 
in  posse  from  eternity,  because  creation  does  not  relate  to  the  Substance 
of  God,  as  generation  does. 



Whether  is  the  Ingenerate  one  or  two?  Inconsistent  in  Arians  to  use  an 
unscriptural  word ;  necessary  to  define  its  meaning.  Different  senses  of 
the  word.  If  it  means  "  without  Father,"  there  is  but  One  Ingenerate; 
if  "  without  beginning  or  creation,"  there  are  Two.  Inconsistency  of 
Asterius.  "  Ingenerate"  is  a  title  of  God,  not  in  contrast  with  the  Son, 
hut  with  creatures,  as  is  "  Almighty,"  or  "  Lord  of  powers."  "  Father" 
is  the  truer  title,  not  only  as  Scriptural,  hut  as  implying  a  Son,  and  our 
adoption  as  sons.  224 

CHAP.  X, 

How  the  Word  has  free-will,  yet  without  being  alterable.  He  is  unalter- 
able because  the  Image  of  the  Father;  proved  from  texts.  230 

TEXTS  EXPLAINED  ;    AND  FIRST,  PHIL.  ii.  9,  10. 

Various  texts  which  are  alleged  against  the  Catholic  doctrine ;  e.  g.  Phil.  ii. 
9, 10.  Whether  the  words  "  Wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted"  prove 
moral  probation  and  advancement.  Argued  against,  first,  from  the  force 
of  the  word  "  Son,"  according  to  the  Regula  Fidei;  which  is  inconsistent 
with  such  an  interpretation.  Next,  the  passage  examined.  Ecclesiastical 
sense  of"  highly  exalted,"  and  "gave,"  and  "wherefore;"  viz.  as  being 
spoken  with  reference  to  our  Lord's  manhood.  Secondary  sense;  viz.  as 
implying  the  Word's  "  exaltation"  through  the  Resurrection  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  Scripture  speaks  of  His  descent  in  the  Incarnation;  how 
the  phrase  does  not  derogate  from  the  Nature  of  the  Word.  233 


Whether  the  words  "  therefore,"  "  anointed,"  &c.  imply  that  the  Word  has 
been  rewarded.  Argued  against,  first,  from  the  word  "  fellows"  i.  e.  "  par- 
takers." He  is  anointed  with  the  Spirit  in  His  manhood  to  sanctify 
human  nature.  Therefore  the  Spirit  descended  on  Him  in  Jordan,  when 
in  the  flesh.  And  for  us  He  is  said  to  sanctify  Himself,  and  in  order  to 
give  us  the  glory  He  has  received.  The  word  "  wherefore"  implies  His 
divinity.  "  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,"  &c.  do  not  imply  trial  or 
choice.  246 




Additional  texts  brought  as  objections;  e.  g.  Hebr.  i.  4.  vii.  22.  Whether 
the  word  "better"  implies  likeness  to  the  Angels;  and  "made"  or 
"  become"  implies  creation.  Necessary  to  consider  the  circumstances 
under  which  Scripture  speaks.  Difference  between  "  better"  and 
"greater;"  texts  in  proof.  "  Made"  or  "  become"  is  a  general  word. 
Contrast  in  Heb.  i.4.  between  the  Son  and  the  Works,  in  point  of  nature. 
The  difference  of  the  punishments  under  the  two  Covenants  shews  the 
difference  of  the  natures  of  the  Son  and  the  Angels.  "  Become"  relates, 
not  to  the  Nature  of  the  Word,  but  to  His  manhood  and  office  and  re- 
lation towards  us.  Parallel  passages  in  which  the  term  is  applied  to  the 
Eternal  Father.  257 

NOTE  ON  p.  214. 

On   the   meaning    of    the  formula  «rg<»  ymnfawt   cvx,   wt  in   the    Nicene 
Anathema.  272 



Introduction;  the  Regula  Fidci  counter  to  an  Arian  sense  of  the  text; 
which  is  not  supported  by  the  word  "servant,"  nor  by  "made"  which  oc- 
curs in  it;  (how  can  the  Judge  be  among  the  "  works"  which  "  God  will 
bring  into  judgment?")  nor  by  "faithful;"  and  is  confuted  by  the  im- 
mediate context,  which  is  about  Priesthood ;  and  by  the  foregoing  passage, 
which  explains  the  word  "  faithful"  to  mean  trustworthy,  as  do  1  Pet. 
iv.  fin.  and  other  texts.  On  the  whole  "  made"  may  safely  be  understood 
either  of  the  divine  generation  or  the  human  creation.  281 



The  Regula  Fideimnst  be  observed ;  "  made"  applies  to  our  Lord's  manhood ; 
and  to  His  manifestation ;  and  to  His  office  relative  to  us  ;  and  is  relative 
to  the  Jews.  Parallel  instance  in  Gen.  27,  29,  37.  The  context  con- 
tradicts the  Arian  interpretation.  297 




Arian  formula,"  A  creature  but  not  as  one  of  the  creatures ;"  but  each  creature 
is  unlike  all  other  creatures ;  and  no  creature  can  create.  The  Word  then 
differs  from  all  creatures  in  that  in  which  they,  though  otherwise  differing, 
all  agree  together,  as  creatures ;  viz.  iu  being  an  efficient  Cause ;  in  being 
the  one  Divine  Medium  or  Agent  in  creation;  moreover  in  being  the 
Revealer  of  the  Father;  and  in  being  the  Object  of  worship.  306 



Absurdity  of  supposing  a  Son  or  Word  created  in  order  to  the  creation  of 
other  creatures;  as  to  the  creation  being  unable  to  bear  God's  immediate 
hand,  God  condescends  to  the  lowest.  Moreover,  if  the  Son  a  creature, 
He  too  could  not  bear  God's  hand,  and  an  infinite  series  of  media  will  be 
necessary.  Objected,  that,  as  Moses  who  led  out  the  Israelites  was  a  man, 
so  our  Lord;  but  Moses  was  not  the  Agent  in  creation: — objected  again, 
that  unity  is  found  in  created  ministrations ;  but  all  such  ministrations  are 
defective  and  dependent: — again,  that  He  learned  to  create;  yet  could 
God's  Wisdom  need  teaching?  and  why  should  He  learn,  if  the  Father 
"  worketh  hitherto?"  If  the  Son  was  created  to  create  us,  He  is  for  our 
sake,  not  we  for  His.  315 



Contrast  between  the  Father's  operations  immediately  and  naturally  in  the 
Son,  instrumentally  by  the  creatures ;  Scripture  terms  illustrative  of  this. 
Explanation  of  these  illustrations ;  which  should  be  interpreted  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church ;  perverse  sense  put  on  them  by  the  Arians, 
refuted.  Mystery  of  Divine  Generation.  Contrast  between  God's  Word 
and  man's  word  drawn  out  at  length.  Asterius  betrayed  into  holding  two 
Ingenerates ;  his  inconsistency.  Baptism  how  by  the  Son  as  well  as  by 
the  Father.  On  the  Baptism  of  heretics.  Why  Arian  worse  than  other 
heresies?.  323 



Proverbs  are  of  a  figurative  nature,  and  must  be  interpreted  as  such.  We 
must  interpret  them,  and  in  particular  this  passage,  by  the  Regula  Fidei. 
"  He  created  Me"  not  equivalent  to  "  I  am  a  creature."  Wisdom  a 
creature  so  far  forth  as  Its  human  body.  Again,  If  He  is  a  creature,  it 
is  as  "a  Beginning  of  ways,"  an  office  which,  though  not  an  attribute,  is 
a  consequence,  of  a  higher  and  divine  nature.  And  it  is  "  for  the  works," 
which  implies  that  the  works  existed,  and  therefore  much  more  He,  before 
He  was  created.  Also  "the  Lord"  not  the  Father  "created"  Him, 
which  implies  the  creation  was  that  of  a  servant.  342 


Our  Lord  is  said  to  be  created  "  for  the  works,"  i.  e.  with  a  particular 
purpose,  which  no  mere  creatures  are  ever  said  to  be.  Parallel  of  Isai. 
49,  5.  &c.  When  His  manhood  is  spoken  of,  a  reason  for  it  is  added ; 
not  so  when  His  Divine  Nature ;  texts  in  proof.  353 


Our  Lord  not  said  in  Scripture  to  be  "created,"  nor  the  works  to  be  "begotten." 
"In  the  beginning"  means,  in  the  case  of  the  works,  "from  the  beginning." 
Scripture  passages  explained.  We  are  made  by  God  first,  begotten  next; 
creatures  by  nature,  sons  by  grace.  Christ  begotten  first,  made  or  created 
afterwards.  Sense  of  "  First-born  of  the  dead ;"  of  "  First-born  among 
many  brethren;"  of  "  First-born  of  all  creation,"  contrasted  with  "  Only- 
begotten."  Further  interpretation  of  "  Beginning  of  ways,"  and  "  for  the 
works."  Why  a  creature  could  not  redeem;  why  redemption  was  ne- 
cessary at  all.  Texts  which  contrast  the  Word  and  the  works.  362 


viz.  22—30. 

It  is  right  to  interpret  this  passage  by  the  Regula  Fidei.  "  Founded"  is  used 
in  contrast  to  superstructure ;  and  it  implies,  as  in  the  case  of  stones  in 
building,  previous  existence.  "  Before  the  world"  signifies  the  divine 
intention  and  purpose.  Recurrence  to  Prov.  viii.  22.  and  application  of  it 
to  created  Wisdom  as  seen  in  the  works.  The  Son  reveals  the  Father, 
first  by  the  works,  then  by  the  Incarnation.  386 




Introduction.  The  doctrine  of  the  Coinherence.  The  Father  and  the  Son 
Each  whole  and  perfect  God.  They  are  in  Each  Other,  because  their 
Suhstance  is  One  and  the  Same.  They  are  Each  Perfect  and  have  One 
Suhstarice,  because  the  Second  Person  is  the  Son  of  the  First.  Asterius's 
evasive  explanation  of  the  text  under  review;  refuted.  Since  the  Son  has 
all  that  the  Father  has,  He  is  His  Image ;  and  the  Father  is  the  One 
Only  God,  because  the  Son  is  in  the  Father.  398 


Our  Lord's  divinity  cannot  interfere  with  His  Father's  prerogatives,  as  the 
One  God,  which  were  so  earnestly  upheld  by  the  Son.  "  One"  is  used  in 
contrast  with  false  gods  and  idols,  not  with  the  Son,  through  whom  the 
Father  spoke.  Our  Lord  adds  His  Name  to  the  Father's,  as  being  in- 
cluded in  Him.  The  Father  the  First,  not  as  if  the  Son  were  not  First 
too,  but  as  Origin.  409 

TEXTS  EXPLAINED  ;    NINTHLY,  JOHN  X.  30.  XVli.  11,  &C. 

Arian  explanation,  that  the  Son  is  one  with  the  Father  in  will  and  judgment; 
but  so  are  all  good  men,  nay  things  inanimate ;  contrast  of  the  Son. 
Oneness  between  Them  is  in  nature,  because  there  is  oneness  in  operation. 
Angels  not  objects  of  prayer,  because  they  do  not  work  together  with 
God,  but  the  Son;  texts  quoted.  Seeing  an  Angel,  is  not  seeing  God. 
Arians  in  fact  hold  two  Gods,  and  tend  to  Gentile  polytheism.  Arian 
explanation  that "  The  Father  and  Son  are  one,  as  we  are  one  with  Christ," 
is  put  aside  by  the  Regnla  Fidei,  and  shewn  invalid  by  the  usage 
of  Scripture  in  illustrations ;  the  true  force  of  the  comparison ;  force  of 
the  terms  used.  Force  of  "  in  us ;"  force  of  "  as;"  confirmed  by  S.  John. 
In  what  sense  we  are  "in  God"  and  His  "  sons."  414 




Enumeration  of  texts  still  to  be  explained.  Arians  compared  to  the  Jews. 
We  must  recur  to  the  Regula  Fidei.  Our  Lord  did  not  come  into,  but 
became,  man,  and  therefore  had  the  acts  and  affections  of  the  flesh.  The 
same  works  divine  and  human.  Thus  the  flesh  was  purified,  and  men 
were  made  immortal.  Reference  to  1  Pet.  iv.  1 .  436 


JOHN  iii.  35.  &c. 

These  texts  intended  to  preclude  the  Sabellian  notion  of  the  Son ;  they  fall 
in  with  the  Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the  Son ;  they  are  explained  by 
"  so"  in  John  5,  26.  (Anticipation  of  the  next  chapter.)  Again,  they 
are  used  with  reference  to  our  Lord's  human  nature;  and  for  our  sake, 
that  we  might  receive  and  not  lose,  as  receiving  in  Him.  And  consistently 
with  other  parts  of  Scripture,  which  shew  that  He  had  the  power,  &c. 
before  He  received  it.  He  was  God  and  man,  and  His  actions  are  often 
at  once  divine  and  human.  451 


LUKE  ii.  52. 

Arian  explanation  of  the  former  text  contradicts  the  Regula  Fidei;  and 
the  context.  Our  Lord  said  that  He  was  ignorant  of  the  Day,  by  reason 
of  His  human  nature ;  from  sympathy  with  man.  Jf  the  Holy  Spirit  knows 
the  Day,  therefore  the  Son  knows ;  if  the  Son  knows  the  Father,  therefore 
He  knows  the  Day;  if  He  has  all  that  is  the  Father's,  therefore  know- 
ledge of  the  Day;  if  in  the  Father,  He  knows  the  Day  in  the  Father;  if 
the  Father's  Image,  He  knows  the  Day;  if  He  created  and  upholds  all 
things,  He  knows  the  Day  when  they  will  cease  to  be.  He  knows  not,  as 
representing  us,  argued  from  Matt.  24,  42.  As  He  asked  about  Lazarus's 
grave,  &c.  yet  knew,  so  He  knows ;  as  S.  Paul  said, "  whether  in  the  body  I 
know  not,"  &c.  yet  knew,  so  He  knows.  He  said  He  knew  not,  for  our 
profit ;  that  we  be  not  curious,  (as  in  Acts  1,  7-  where  on  the  contrary  He 
did  not  say  He  knew  riot;)  that  we  be  not  secure  and  slothful.  As  the 
Almighty  asks  of  Adam  and  of  Cain,  yet  knew,  so  the  Son  knows.  Again, 
He  also  advanced  in  wisdom,  as  man;  else  He  made  Angels  perfect  before 
Himself.  He  advanced,  in  that  the  Godhead  was  manifested  in  Him  more 
fully  as  time  went  on.  459 



JOHN  xii.  27.  &C. 

Arian  inferences  are  against  the  Regula  Fidei,  as  before.  He  wept  and 
the  like,  as  man.  Other  texts  prove  Him  God.  God  could  not  fear. 
He  feared  because  His  flesh  feared.  476 


Whether  the  Son  is  begotten  at  the  Father's  will  ?  This  virtually  the  same  as 
whether  Once  He  was  not  ?  and  used  by  the  Arians  to  introduce  the  latter 
question.  The  Regula  Fidei  answers  it  at  once  in  the  negative  by  contrary 
texts.  The  Arians  follow  the  Valentinians  in  maintaining  a  precedent  will ; 
which  really  is  only  exercised  by  God  towards  creatures.  Instances  from 
Scripture.  Inconsistency  of  Asterius.  If  the  Son  by  will,  there  must  be 
another  Word  before  Him.  If  God  is  good,  or  exist,  by  His  will,  then  is 
the  Son  by  His  will.  If  He  willed  to  have  reason  or  wisdom,  then  is  His 
Word  and  Wisdom  at  His  will.  The  Son  is  the  Living  Will,  and  has  all 
titles  which  denote  connaturality.  That  will  which  the  Father  has  to  the 
Son,  the  Son  has  to  the  Father.  The  Father  wills  the  Son  and  the  Son 
wills  the  Father.  484 



Subject  I. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Monarchia  implies  or  requires,  not  negatives, 
the  substantial  existence  of  the  Word  and  Son. 

§§.  1-5- 

The  substantiality  of  the  Word  proved  from  Scripture.  If  the  One  Origin 
be  substantial,  Its  Word  is  substantial.  Unless  the  Word  and  Son  be  a 
second  Origin,  or  a  work,  or  an  attribute  (and  so  God  be  compounded),  or 
at  the  "same  time  Father,  or  involve  a  second  nature  in  God,  He  is  from 
God's  Substance  and  distinct  from  Him.  Illustration  of  John  10,  30. 
drawn  from  Deut.  4,  4.  512 


Subject  II. 

Texts  explained  against  the  Arians,  viz.  Matt,  xxviii.  18.  Phil.  ii.  9. 

Eph.  i.  20. 

§§.  6,  7. 

When  the  Word  and  Son  hungered,  wept,  and  was  wearied,  He  acted  as 
our  Mediator,  taking  on  Him  what  was  ours,  that  He  might  impart  to  us 
what  was  His.  520 

Subject  III. 

Comparison  of  Photinians  with  Arians. 

Arians  date  the  Son's  beginning  earlier  than  the  Photinians.  521 

Subject  IV. 

(Being  Subject  1.  continued.} 
§§.  9,  10. 

Unless  Father  aiid  Son  are  two  in  name  only,  or  as  parts  and  so  each 
imperfect,  or  two  gods,  they  are  consubstantial,  one  in  Godhead,  and  the 
Son  from  the  Father.  522 

Subject  V. 
(Being  Subject  3.  continued.) 


Photiniaus,  like  Arians,  say  that  the  Word  was,  not  indeed  created,  but  deve- 
loped, to  create  us ;  as  if  the  Divine  silence  were  a  state  of  inaction,  and 
when  God  spake  by  the  Word,  He  acted ;  or  as  if  there  were  a  going  forth 
and  return  of  the  Word ;  a  doctrine  which  implies  change  and  imperfection 
in  Father  and  Son.  525 

Subject  VI. 
The  Sabellian  doctrine  of  dilatation  and  contraction. 

§§.  13,  14. 

Such  a  doctrine  precludes  all  real  distinctions  of  personality  in  the  Divine 
Nature.    Illustration  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  from  2  Cor.  6, 1 1,  &c.  522 


Subject  VII. 

On  (he  Identity  of  the  Word  with  the  Son,  against  Photinians  and 

§§.  15—24. 

Since  the  Word  is  from  God,  He  must  be  Son.  Since  the  Son  is  from 
everlasting,  He  must  he  the  Word;  else  either  He  is  superior  to  the 
Word,  or  the  Word  is  the  Father.  Texts  of  the  New  Testament  which 
state  the  unity  of  the  Son  with  the  Father ;  therefore  the  Son  is  the  Word. 
Three  heretical  hypotheses— 1 .  That  the  Man  is  the  Son ;  refuted.  2.  That 
the  Word  and  Man  together  are  the  Son;  refuted.  3.  That  the  Word 
became  Son  on  His  incarnation  ;  refuted.  Texts  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  speak  of  the  Son.  If  they  are  merely  prophetical,  then  those 
concerning  the  Word  may  be  such  also.  531 

Subject  VIII. 

(Being  Subject  4.  continued.) 

Heretical  illustration  from  1  Cor.  12,  4.  refuted.  543 

Subject  IX. 
(Being  Subject  7.  continued.) 

That  the  Son  is  the  Co-existing  Word,  argued  from  the  New  Testament. 
Texts  from  Old  Testament  continued;  especially  Ps.  110,  3.  Besides, 
the  Word  in  Old  Testament  may  be  Son  in  New,  as  Spirit  in  Old 
Testament  is  Paraclete  in  New.  Objection  from  Acts  10,  36.  urged  by  the 
Samosatenes;  answered  by  parallels,  such  as  1  Cor.  1,  5.  Lev.  9,  7.  &c. 
Necessity  of  the  Word's  taking  flesh,  viz.  to  sanctify,  yet  without  de- 
stroying, the  flesh.  545 


Page  8.  line  14.  for  for  read  from 
15.  note  d.  vid.  p.  311,  note  i. 
27.  line  19.  for  the  Word,  read  a  word, 

note  i.  line  11.  for  there  be  read  He  be 
30.  line  8.  for  which  read  whom 
34.  heading,  for  Synod  read  Symbol 
69.  line  18.  from  fin.  for  does  read  does  not 

80.  note  r.  col.  2.  and  191.  heading,  for  Father  read  fathers 

81.  note  t.  circ.  fin.  for  repeats  read  repents  twice 
85.  and  122.  read  Germinius 

87.  line  8.  for  those  read  whom 

91.  note.  col.  2.  for  Ariorum  read  Arianorum 

97.  fin.  for  of  Him.  ..being  read  that  He.  ..was 
108.  note  i.  for  interpretators  read' interpreters 
119.  note  n.  col.  1.  line  18.  for  the  Father's  read  a  father's 

124.  note  y.  fin.  for  Anomrean  read  the  Anoniffion 

125.  note.  col.  1.  fin.  for  the  read  that 
130.  line  4.  insert  been  after  have 
149.  margin,  for  Theb.  read  Heb. 
151.  line  13.  for  is  read  in 

155.  note  f.  col.  1.  line  6.  from  fin.  for  Father  read  Sou 

157.  note  i.  col.  2.  for  mentioned  read  mentions 

174.  line  12.  from  fin.  after  Grat.  30.  add  and  passim. 

176.  line  10.  omit  certainly. 

194.  line  1.  for  who  read  whom 

205.  ref.  4.  for  ftevos  read  (taveis 

211.  note,  line  7.  for  even  read  ever 

col.  2.  line  2.  for  statement  read  implication 

220.  line  6.  for  as  to  all  such  speculations  concerning  read  in  attri- 

buting such  things  to 

221.  note  f.  col.  1.  for  irreligionem  read  irreligiosam 

222.  circ.  fin.  for  Son. . . He  read  son. .  .he 

223.  note,  for  is  to  be  read  to  be 

239.  note,  for  humiliabus  read  humiliatus 

243.  note,  for  did  so  read  He  did  so 

244.  note  k.  line  6.  for  to  come  read  it  comes 
246.  note  fin.  for  Xcyov  read  KV^IOV 

253.  note  fin.  for  as  read  in 

343.  line  10.  for  .  B  read  ;  b 

397.  heading,  for  Each  read  The 

413.  note.  col.  2.  init.for  singly  read  simply 

440.  three  times,  for  drift  read  scope 

453.  note.  col.  1.  line  25.  for  but  read  hardly  more  than 

486.  note  g.  col.  2.  lines  3  and  6.  for  as. .  .si  read  which. .  .si  non 

In  Letters  and  Numbers. 

Page  31.  note  p.  for  46.  read  40. 
81.  top  margin.  add^.G. 
101.  line  3.  for  clerks  read  clerks r 
109.  note  m.  for  the  same  year  read  next  year 
157.  note  i.  col.  1 .  line  4.  for  ref.  4.  read  ref.  5. 
162.  line  10.  for  A.D.  367.  mzrf  A.D.  357. 
188.  ref.  4.  for  3  rmrf  4 

193.  ref.  5.  /or  5  rearf  4 

194.  ref.  2.  /or  79  read  179 

210.  note.  col.  1.  for  36.  rmrf  30,  20. 

211.  lettering  of  note,  for  1  read  f 

217.  note  d.  for  g  read  z 

218.  note  a.  for  13.  raz</  10. 

256.  note  o.  init.  for  ref.  4.  rearf  ref.  5. 

266.  ref.  2.  /or  144.  raw*  244. 

283.  note  c.  fin.  and  287.  note  g.  fin.  for  h  read  i 

285.  ref.  2.  for  3  rairf  4 

290.  ref.  1.  /or  44.  read  43. 

332.  lettering  of  note,  read  s 

378.  note  e.  fin.  for  67.  read  56. 

393.  ref.  2.  for  291.  mid  391. 

394.  line  4.  from  fin.  and  margin,  for  water  read  water5  and  for 

iii.  35.  read  5iii.  35. 



S.    A  T  H  A  N  A  S  I  U  S, 



CHAP.  I. 


The  complaint  of  the  Arians  against  the  Nicene  Council;  their  fickleness; 
they  are  like  Jews ;   their  employment  of  force  instead  of  reason. 

1.  THOU  hast  done  well,  in  signifying  to  me  the  discussion  CHAP. 
thou  hast  had  with  the  advocates  of  Arianism,  among  whom      ** 
were  certain  of  the  friends  of  Eusebius,  as  well  as  very  many   *' 
of  the    brethren   who   hold    the    doctrine   of   the   Church. 
I  hailed  thy  vigilance  for  the  love  of  Christ,  which  excel- 
lently exposed  the  irreligion8  of  their  heresy;  while  I  mar- 
velled at  the  effrontery  which  led  the  Arians,  after  all  the  past 
detection  of  unsoundness  and  futility  in  their  arguments,  nay, 
after  the  general  conviction  of  their  extreme  perverseness, 
still  to  complain  like  the  Jews,  "  Why  did  the  Fathers  at 
Nicaea  use  terms  not  in  Scripture b,  c  Of  the  substance'  and 

a  ivffiQtict,  affifitiet,   &c.   here    trans-  «<re/3«f,  as  being  without  devotion,  the 

lated   "religion,    irreligion,   religious,  Son  tvirt^s  devout,  as  paying  devotion  to 

&c.&c."  are  technical  words  throughout,  the  Father."  Socr.  Hist,  ii.43.    Hence 

being  taken  from  St.  Paul's  text, "  Great  Arius  ends  his  Letter  to  Eusebius  with 

is  the  mystery  of  godliness,"  tufifitittf)  a,>.n6us  tvffi(Zrt.    Theod.  Hist.  i.  4. 

i.  e.  orthodoxy.     Such  too  seems  to  be  b  It  appears  that  the  Arians  did  not 

the  meaning  of  "  godly  admonitions,"  venture  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  the 

and  "godly  judgments, "and  "this  godly  definition  of  the  Council  till  the  date 

and  well-learned  man,"  in  our  Ordina-  (A.D.  350.)  of  this  work  ;  when  Acaeius 

tion  Services.    The  Latin  translation  is  headed  them.     Yet  the  plea  here  used, 

"  pius,"    "  pietas."     It   might    be    in  the  unscriptural  character  of  its  symbol, 

some    respects    suitably    rendered    by  had  been  suggested  to  Constantius  on 

"  devout"  and  its  derivatives.     On  its  his  accession,  A.D.  337,  by  the  Arian 

familiar  use  in  the  controversy  depends  priest,  the  favourite  of  Constantia,  to 

the    blasphemous    jest    of    Eudoxius,  whom   Constantine   had   entrusted   his 

Arian  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  which  will,  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  3;  and  Eusebius 

was  received  with  loud  laughter  in  the  of  Csesarea  glances  at  it,  at  the  time  of 

Cathedral,    and    remained    in    esteem  the  Council,  in  the  letter  to  his  Church, 

down  to  Socrates's  day,  "  The  Father  is  which  is  subjoined  to  this  Treatise. 

The  Aridits,  like  the  Jews,  lunrillwg  to  believe, 

NICEN.  *  One  in  substance  ?'  '      Thou  then,  as  a  man  of  learning, 
'J  'f      in  spite  of  their  subterfuges,  didst  convict  them  of  talking 

OftOOUfflOt  ,  ,      . 

to  no  purpose;  and  they  in  devising  them  were  but  acting 
suitably  to  their  own  evil  disposition.  For  they  are  as 
variable  and  fickle  in  their  sentiments,  as  chameleons  in 
their  colours  c  ;  and  when  exposed  they  look  confused  ;  and 
when  questioned  they  hesitate,  and  then  they  lose  shame, 
and  betake  themselves  to  evasions.  And  then,  when  detected 
in  these,  they  do  not  rest  till  they  invent  fresh  matters  which 

Ps.  2,1.  are  not,  and,  according  to  the  Scripture,  imagine  a  vain 
thing;  all  that  they  may  be  constant  to  their  irreligion. 

2.  Now  such  endeavours'1  are  nothing  else  than  an  obvious 
token  of  their  defect  of  reason6,  and  a  copying,  as  I  have  said, 
of  Jewish  malignity.  For  the  Jews  too,  when  convicted  by  the 

John  6,  Truth,  and  unable  to  confront  it,  used  evasions,  such  as  What 


sign  doest  Thou,  that  we  may  see  and  believe  Thee  ?  What  dost 
TJiou  work  ?  though  so  many  signs  were  given,  that  they  said 

John  11,  themselves,  What  do  we?  for  this  man  doeth  many  miracles? 
In  truth,  dead  men  were  raised,  lame  walked,  blind  saw  afresh, 
lepers  were  cleansed,  and  the  water  became  wine,  and  five 
loaves  satisfied  five  thousand,  and  all  wondered  and  wor- 
shipped the  Lord,  confessing  that  in  Him  were  fulfilled  the 
prophecies,  and  that  He  was  God  the  Son  of  God  ;  all  but 
the  Pharisees,  who,  though  the  signs  shone  brighter  than  the 

Johnio,  sun,  yet  complained  still,  as  ignorant  men,  Why  dost  Thou, 
being  a  man,  make  Thyself  God?  Insensate,  and  verily 
blind  in  understanding  !  they  ought  contrariwise  to  have 
said,  "  Why  hast  Thou,  being  God,  become  man  ?"  for  His 
works  proved  Him  God,  that  they  might  both  worship  the 

c  Alexander  also  calls  them  chame-  but  infra,  §.  25.   lav^j/^ara   means 

Icons,  Socr.  i.   6.   p.  12.     Athanasius  more    definitely   reasonings    or    argu- 

so  calls   the   Meletians,  Hist.  Arian.  mentations. 

§.  79.    Cyril  compares  them  to  u  the  e  u,\oyius ;    an  allusion,  frequent  in 

leopard  which  cannot  change  his  spots."  Athanasius,  to  the  judicial  consequence 

that  they  considered  Creeds  as  yearly  have  they  none."    Also  Orat.  i.  §.  35. 

covenants ;    and  de  Synod.  §.  3.  4.  as  fin.  §.  40.  init.  §.  62.  Orat.  ii.  §.  7.  init. 

State  Edicts,  vid.  also  §.  14.  and  passim.  Hence  he   so   often   calls    the   Arians 

"  "What  wonder  that  they  fight  against  "  mad"  and  "  deranged;"  e.  g.  "  not 

their  fathers,  when  they  fight  against  aware  how  mad  their  reason  is."   Orat. 

themselves?"  §.  37.  i.  §.  37. 
,  and  so  Orat.  i.  §.  44.  init. 

and  fertile  in  exceptions. 

goodness  of  the  Father,  and  admire  the  Son's  economy  for  CHAP. 
our  sakes.     However,  this  they  did  not  say  ;  no,  nor  liked  to  — * — 
witness  what  He  was  doing ;  or  they  witnessed  indeed,  for 
this  they  could  not  help,  but  they  changed  their  ground  of 
complaint   again,   "Why  healest  Thou   the  paralytic,  why 
makest  Thou  the  born-blind  to  see,  on  the  sabbath  day  ?" 
But  this  too  was  an  excuse,  and  mere  murmuring ;   for  on 
other  days  as  well  did  the  Lord  heal  all  manner  of  sickness.  Mat.  4, 
and  all  manner  of  disease,  but  they  complained  still  accord- 
ing to  their  wont,  and  by  calling  Him  Beelzebub,  preferred 
the    suspicion  of  Atheism',  to   a  recantation   of  their  own 
wickedness.     And  though  in  such  sundry  times  and  diverse 
manners  the  Saviour  shewed  His  Godhead  and  preached  the 
Father  to  all  men,  nevertheless,  as  kicking  against  the  pricks, 
they  contradicted  in  the  language  of  folly,  and  this  they  did, 


f  or  ungodliness,  Midruros.  Thus 
Aetius  was  called  o  0,6109,  the  ungodly, 
de  Synod.  §.  6 ;  and  Arius  complains 
that  Alexander  had  expelled  him  and 
his  from  Alexandria,  u;  avfya'rotis  uSiov?. 
Theodor.  Hist.  i.  4.  "Atheism"  and 
"  Atheist"  imply  intention,  system,  and 
profession,  and  are  so  far  too  strong  a 
rendering  of  the  Greek.  Since  Christ 
was  God,  to  deny  Him  was  to  deny  God. 
The  force  of  the  term,  however,  seems  to 
be,  that,  whereas  the  Son  had  revealed 
the  a  unknown  God,"  and  destroyed  the 
reign  of  idols,  the  denial  of  the  Son  was 
bringing  back  idolatry  and  its  attendant 
spiritual  ignorance.  Thus  in  the  Orat. 
contr.  Gent.  §.  29.  fin.  written  before 
the  Arian  controversy,  he  speaks  of 
"  the  Greek  idolatry  as  full  of  all 
Atheism"  or  ungodliness,  and  contrasts 
with  it  the  knowledge  of  "  the  Guide 
and  Framer  of  the  Universe,  the  Fa- 
ther's Word,"  "  that  through  Him  we 
may  discern  His  Father,  and  the  Greeks 
may  know  how  far  they  have  separated 
themselves  from  the  truth."  And  Orat. 
ii.  43. he  classes  Arians  with  the  Greeks, 
who  "  though  they  have  the  name  of 
God  in  their  mouths,  incur  the  charge 
of  Atheism,  because  they  know  not  the 
real  and  true  God,  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (vid.  also  Basil  in 
Eunom.  ii.  22.)  Shortly  afterwards 
he  gives  a  further  reason  for  the  title, 
observing  that  Arianism  was  worse  than 
previous  heresies,  such  as  Mauicheism, 
inasmuch  as  the  latter  denied  the  Incar- 
nation, but  it  tore  from  God's  substance 

His  connatural  Word,  and,  as  far  as 
its  words  went,  infringed  upon  the 
perfections  and  being  of  the  First  Cause. 
And  so  ad  Ep.  JEg.  §.  17.  fin.  he  says, 
that  it  alone,  beyond  other  heresies, 
ii  has  been  bold  against  the  Godhead 
Itself  in  a  mad  way,  (petvixurigav,  vid. 
foregoing  note,)  denying  that  there  is  a 
Word,  and  that  the  Father  was  always 
Father."  Elsewhere,  he  speaks  more 
generally,  as  if  Arianism  introduced 
u  an  Atheism  or  rather  Judaism  against 
the  Scriptures,  being  next  door  to  Hea- 
thenism, so  that  its  disciple  cannot  be 
even  named  Christian ;  for  all  such 
tenets  are  contrary  to  the  Scriptures;" 
and  he  makes  this  the  reason  why  the 
Nicene  Fathers  stopped  their  ears  and 
condemned  it.  ad  Ep.  ./Eg.  §.  13.  For 
the  same  reason  he  calls  the  heathen,  atheistical  or  ungodly,  ii  who  are 
arraigned  of  irreligion  by  Divine  Scrip- 
ture." Orat.  contr.  Gent.  §.  14.  vid. 
tftvXuv  a&a-r»jT«.  §.  46.  init.  Moreover, 
he  calls  the  Arian  persecution  worse 
than  the  pagan  cruelties,  and  therefore 
"  a  Babylonian  Atheism,"  Ep.  Encycl. 
§.  5.  as  not  allowing  the  Catholics  the 
use  of  prayer  and  baptism,  with  a  refer- 
ence to  Dan.  vi.  11,  £c.  Thus  too  he 
calls  Constantius  atheist,  for  his  treat- 
ment of  Hosius ;  o3n  rov  diov  $t>$n6i\s  o 
eifaof.  Hist.  Arian.  45.  Another  reason 
for  the  title  seems  to  have  lain  in  the 
idolatrous  character  of  Arian  worship 
on  its  own  shewing,  viz.  as  worshipping 
One  whom  they  yet  maintained  to  be  a 

B  2 

4  Andy  like  the  Jews,  have  recourse  to  violence. 

ISTICEN.  according  to  the  divine  proverb,  that  by  finding  occasions, 

—  they  might  separate  themselves  from  the  truth8. 
§•2.  3.  As  then  the  Jews  of  that  day,  for  acting  thus  wickedly  and 
denying  the  Lord,  were  with  justice  deprived  of  fheir  laws  and 
of  the  promise  made  to  their  fathers,  so  the  Arians,  Judaizing 
now,  are,  in  my  judgment,  in  circumstances  like  those  of 
Caiaphas  and  the  contemporary  Pharisees.  For,  perceiving 
that  their  heresy  is  utterly  unreasonable,  they  invent  excuses, 
"  Why  was  this  denned,  and  not  that  ?"  Yet  wonder  not  if 
now  they  practise  thus ;  for  in  no  long  time  they  will  turn  to 

John  18, outrage,  and  next  will  threaten  the  band  and  the  captain^. 
Forsooth  in  these  their  heterodoxy  has  such  consistence  as 
we  see;  for  denying  the  Word  of  God,  reason  have  they 
none  at  all,  as  is  equitable.  Aware  then  of  this,  I  would  have 
made  no  reply  to  their  interrogations ;  but,  since  thy  friend- 
liness1 has  asked  to  know  the  transactions  of  the  Council, 
I  have  without  any  delay  related  at  once  what  then  took 
place,  shewing  in  few  words,  how  destitute  Arianism  is  of 
a  religious  spirit,  and  how  its  very  business  is  to  frame 

8  A  reference  to  Prov.  18,  1.  which  duced  us  instead  of  the  deacons  of  the 

runs  in  the  Septuagint,  "  a  man  seek-  Church?"  vid.  also §.10.  and  45.  Orat. 

eth  occasions,  when  desirous  of  separat-  ii.   §.  43.  Ep.  Encycl.  §.  5.     Against 

ing  himself  from  friends."  the  use   of  violence    in    religion,  vid. 

h  Apparently  an  allusion  t£  the  text  Hist.  Arian.  §.  33.  67.  (Hil.  ad  Const, 
in  the  margin.  Elsewhere,  he  speaks  i.  2.)  On  the  other  hand,  he  observes, 
of  "  the  chief  captain"  and  "  the  go-  that  at  Nicsea,  "it  was  not  necessity 
vernor,"  with  an  allusion  to  Acts  23,  which  drove  the  judges  to"  their  decision, 
22—24.  &c.  &c.  Hist.  Arian.  §.  66.  fin.  "  but  all  vindicated  the  Truth  from  de- 
vid.  also  §.  2.  Speaking  of  the  Council  liberate  purpose."  ad  Ep.  JEg.  13. 
of  Tyre,  A.D.  335.  he  asks,  Apol.  J  ItMurts.  vid.  also  Hist.  Arian.  §.  45. 
contr.  Arian.  §.  8.  "  How  venture  they  Orat.  ii.  §.  4.  where  Parker  maintains 
to  call  that  a  Council  in  which  a  Count  without  reason  that  it  should  be  trans- 
presided,  and  an  executioner  was  pre-  lated,  "  external  condition."  vid.  also 
sent,  and  a  registrar  [or  jailer]  intro-  Theod.  Hist.  i.  4.  init. 



Ignorant  as  well  as  irreligious  to  attempt  to  reverse  an  Ecumenical  Council  ; 
proceedings  at  Nicaea;  Eusebians  then  signed  what  they  now  complain  of; 
on  the  unanimity  of  true  teachers  and  the  process  of  tradition  ;  changes 
of  the  Arians. 

1.  AND  do  thou,  beloved,  consider  whether  it  be  not  so.  If,  CHAP. 
the  devil  having  sowed  their  hearts  with  this  perverseness*,  — 
they  feel  confidence  in  their  bad  inventions,  let  them  defend 
themselves  against  the  proofs  of  heresy  which  have  been  ad- 
vanced, and  then  will  be  the  time  to  find  fault,  if  they  can, 
with  the  definition  framed  against  them  '.  For  no  one,  on 
being  convicted  of  murder  or  adultery,  is  at  liberty  after 
the  trial  to  arraign  the  sentence  of  the  judge,  why  he  spoke 
in  this  way  and  not  in  thatm.  For  this  does  not  exculpate  the 
convict,  but  rather  increases  the  crime  on  the  score  of  petu- 
lance and  audacity.  In  like  manner,  let  these  either  prove 
that  their  sentiments  are  religious,  (for  they  were  then 
accused  and  convicted,  and  their  complaints  are  since,  and 

s  rou  ^tafiaXou  ,  the  al)u-  faith    and  ignorant  in  their  criticism; 

sion  is   to   Matt.  13,  25.   and  is  very  and  speaks  of  the  Council  negativing 

frequent  in  Athan.  chiefly  with  a  refer-  their   formulse,  and  substituting   those 

ence  to  Ar-ianism.     He  draws  it  out  at  which  were  "  sound  and  ecclesiastical." 

length,  Orat.  ii.  §.  34.    Elsewhere,  he  vid.  also  n.  4. 

uses  the  image  for  the  evil  influences  m  And  so  St.  Leo  passim  concerning 

introduced  into  the  soul  upon  Adam's  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  "  Concord 

fall,  contr.  Apoll.  i.  §.  15.  as  does  S.  will  be  easily  established,  if  the  hearts 

Irenseus,   Heer.  iv.  40.  n.  3.  using  it  of  all  concur  in  that  faith  which  &c.  no 

of  such  as  lead  to  backsliding  in  Chris-  discussion  being  allowed  whatever  con- 

tians,  ibid.  v.  10.  n.  1.    Gregory  Nyssen,  cerning  any  retractation,"  Ep.  94.    He 

of  the  natural  passions    and   of  false  calls  such  an  act  a  "  magnum  sacrile- 

reason    misleading    them,    de   An.   et  gium,"  Ep.  157.  c.  3.    "  To  be  seeking 

Resurr.  p.  640.  vid.  also  Leon.  Ep.  156.  for  what  has  been  disclosed,  to  retract 

c.  2.  what  has   been  perfected,  to  tear  up 

1  The  Council  did  two  things,  ana-  what  has   been  laid  down,  (defmita,) 

thematize  the  Arian  positions,  (at  the  what  is  this  but  to  be  unthankful  for 

end  of  the   Creed,)  and   establish  the  what  we  gained  ?"    Ep.  162.  vid.  the 

true   doctrine  by  the  insertion-  of  the  whole  of  it.     He  says  that  the  attempt 

phrases,  "  of  the  substance"  and  "  one  is  a  no  mark  of  a  peace-maker  but  a 

in   substance,"    Athan.  says   that  the  rebel."  Ep.  1G4.  c.  1.  fin.  vid.  also  Epp. 

Arians  must  not  criticise  the  latter  ber  145,  and  156,  where  he  says,  none  can 

fore  they  had  cleared  themselves  of  the  assail  what  is  once  determined,  but  "  aut 

former.     Thus  he  says  presently,  that  antichristus  aut  diabolus."  c.  2. 
they  were  at  once  irreligious  in  their 

6  Equivocations  and  variations  of  the  Arians.  is  just  that  those  who  are  under  a  charge  should  confine 

-PEF'  themselves  to  their  own  defence,)  or  if  they  have  an  unclean 

conscience,  and  are  aware  of  their  own  irreligion,  let  them  not 

complain  of  what  they  do  not  understand,  or  they  will  bring 

on  them  a  double  imputation,  of  irreligion  and  of  ignorance. 

Rather  let  them  investigate  the  matter  in  a  docile  spirit, 

and  learning  what  hitherto  they  have  not  known,  cleanse 

their  irreligious  ears  with  the  spring  of  truth  and  the  doctrines 

i  via.      of  religion1. 

?F28  m>      2.  Now  it  happened  to  the  Eusebians  in  the  Nicene  Council 
Socr.  p.  as  follows  :  —  while  they  stood  out  in  their  irreligion,  and  at- 
x't  3.   tempted  their  fight  against  Godn,  the  terms  they  used  were 
replete  with  irreligion;  but  the  assembled  Bishops,  who  were 
more  than  three  hundred,  mildly  and  charitably  required  of 
them  to  explain  and  defend  themselves  on  religious  grounds. 
Scarcely,  however,  did  they  begin  to  speak,  when  they  were 
convicted0,  and  one  differed  from  another  ;  then  perceiving  the 
straits  in  which  their  heresy  lay,  they  remained  dumb,  and  by 
their  silence  confessed  the  disgrace  which  came  upon  their  he- 
terodoxy.    On  this  the  Bishops,  having  negatived  the  terms 
they  had  invented,  published  against  them  the  sound  and  eccle- 
siastical faith  ;  and,  whereas  all  subscribed  it,  the  Eusebians 
subscribed  it  also  in  those  very  words,  of  which  they  are 
now  complaining,  I  mean,  "  of  the  substance"  and  "  one  in 
substance,"  and  that  "  the  Son  of  God  is  neither  creature  or 
work,  nor  in  the  number  of  things  generated,  but  that  the 
Word  is  an  offspring  from  the  substance  of  the  Father."  And, 
what  is  strange  indeed,  Eusebius  ofCaesarea  in  Palestine,  who 
had  denied  the  day  before2,  but  afterwards  subscribed,  sent  to 
his  Church  a  letter,  saying  that  this  was  the  Church's  faith, 
and  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers  ;   and  made  a  public  profes- 
sion that  they  were  before  in  error,  and  were  rashly  contending 
against  the  truth.     For  though  he  was  ashamed  at  that  time  to 

r-  0t»(tK%t7v,  0io'p,ct%ei.  vid.  Acts  5,  39.  Eunom.  ii.  27.  fin.  %£ifrap.K%uv.  Ep. 

23,  9.  are  of  very  frequent  use  in  Athan.  236.  init.  vid.  also  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  19. 

as  if  gfjfW/utgw,  in  speaking  of  the  e.  p.  24.  e.   hoftct%ot  is  used  of  othei 

Arians,  vid.  infra  passim,  also  avr/^a-  heretics,  e.  g.  the  Manichees,  by  Greg 

%o'ftivoi   TU  ffuTvy    Ep.   Encycl.  §.  5.  Naz.  Orat.  45.  §.  8. 
And  in  the  beginning  of  the   contro-         °  i.e.   "convicted  themselves,"  infr 

versy,  Alexander  ap.  Socr.  i.  6.  p.  10.  §.  18.  nt.  tauruv  uti  xarwyajw,  a  p 
b.c.p.  12.  p.  13,Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  729.  JEg.  §.  6.  i.  e.  by  their  variations,  vid 
And  so  ht^Kos  AaWa.  Basil,  contr.  Tit.  iii.  11. 

An  ecumenical  Council  cannot  be  reversed.  7 

adopt  these  phrases,  and  excused  himself  to  the  Church  in  CHAP. 

his  own  way,  yet  he  certainly  means  to  imply  all  this  in  his  

Epistle,  by  his  not  denying  the  "  one  in  substance,"  and  "  of 
the  substance."  And  in  this  way  he  got  into  a  difficulty ;  for 
while  he  was  excusing  himself,  he  went  on  to  attack  the 
Arians,  as  stating  that  "  the  Son  was  not  before  His  gene- 
ration," and  thereby  hinting  at  a  denial  of  His  existence 
before  His  birth  in  the  flesh.  And  this  Acacius  is  aware 
of  also,  though  he  too  through  fear  may  pretend  otherwise 
because  of  the  times  and  deny  the  fact.  Accordingly  I  have 
subjoined  at  the  end  of  these  remarks  the  letter  of  Eusebius, 
that  thou  mayest  know  from  it  the  inconsiderateness  towards 
their  own  doctors,  shewn  by  Christ's  enemies,  and  singularly 
by  Acacius  himself. 

3.  Are  they  not  then  committing  a  crime,  in  their  very   §.4. 
thought  to  gainsay  so  great  and  ecumenical  a  Council  ?  are 
they  not  in  transgression,  when  they  dare  to  confront  that 
good  definition  against  Arianism,  acknowledged,  as  it  is,  by 
those  who  had  in  the  first  instance  taught  them  irreligion  ?  And 
supposing,  even  after  subscription,  the  Eusebians  did  change 
again,  and  return  like  dogs  to  their  own  vomit  of  irreligion, 
do  not  the  present  gainsayers  deserve  still  greater  detestation, 
because  they  thus  sacrifice1  their  souls'  liberty  to  others;  and  are '  »?•»•<- 
willing  to  take  these  persons,  as  masters  of  their  heresy,  who  "£" 
are,  as  James  has  said,  double-minded  men,  and  unstable  in  de  syn- 
all  their  ways,  not  having  one  opinion,  but  changing  to  and  james 
fro,  and  now  recommending  certain  statements,  but  soon  dis- lj  8' 
honouring  them,  and  in  turn  recommending  what  just  now 
they  were  blaming.     But  this,  as  the  Shepherd  has  said,  is 
"  the  child  of  the  devil  V'  and  the  note  of  dealers  rather 

P  The  party  he  is  writing  against  is  succeeded  in  the  see  of  Csesarea.     He 

the  Acacian,  of  whom  he  does  not  seem  attempted  to  defend  Arianism  neither 

to  have  had  much  distinct  knowledge,  under  the  cloak  of  Semiarianism,  nor 

He  contrasts  them  again  and  again  in  wi th  the  bold  logic  of  the  Anomceans,  hut 

the  passages  which  follow  with  the  Euse-  hy  a  pretended  adherence  to  Scripture, 

bians  of  the  Nicene  Council,  and  says  His  formula  was  the  S^a/oi».(like,)  as  the 

that  he  is  sure  that  the  ground  they  Semiarian  was  the   opotouffiov ,  (like  in 

take  when  examined  will  be  found  sub-  substance,)  and  the  Anomoean,  as  the 

stantially  the  same  as  the  Eusebian.  word  signifies,  the  avo^wav,  or  unlike, 
vid.  §.  6.  init.  el  alib.  §.  7-  init.  §.  9.  dr.         1  Hernias.  Pastor,  ii.  9.  who  is  speak - 

fin.  $.  10.  dr.  fin.  §.  13.  init.  vert  x.a.1  ing  immediately,  as  St.  James,  of  wa- 

vvv.  §.  18.  circ.fin.  §.  28,/w.     Acacius  vering  in  prayer, 
was  a  pupil  of  Eusebius's,  whom  he 

8     Mutual  agreement  ike  note  of  doctors  of  the  Church. 

NICEN.  than  of  doctors.  For,  what  our  Fathers  have  delivered,  this 
—  is  truly  doctrine;  and  this  is  truly  the  token  of  doctors,  to 
confess  the  same  thing  with  each  other,  and  to  vary  neither  from 
themselves  nor  from  their  fathers;  whereas  they  who  have 
not  this  character,  are  not  to  be  called  true  doctors  but  evil. 
Thus  the  Greeks,  as  not  witnessing  to  the  same  doctrines, 
but  quarrelling  one  with  another,  have  no  truth  of  teaching ; 
but  the  holy  and  veritable  heralds  of  the  truth  agree  together, 
not  differ.  For  though  they  lived  in  different  times,  yet  they 
one  and  all  tend  the  same  way,  being  prophets  of  the  one 
God,  and  preaching  the  same  Word  harmoniously'. 
§•5.  4.  And  thus  what  Moses  taught,  that  Abraham  observed; 
and  what  Abraham  observed,  that  Noe  and  Enoch  acknow- 
ledged, discriminating  pure  for  impure,  and  becoming  accept- 
able to  God.  For  Abel  too  in  this  way  witnessed,  having 
knowledge  in  the  truths  which  he  had  learned  from  Adam, 
who  himself  had  learned  from  that  Lord,  who  said,  when  He 

vid'        came  at  the  end  of  the  ages  for  the  abolishment  of  sin,  "  I 

2,  7.  give  n°  new  commandment  unto  you,  but  an  old  command- 
ment, which  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning."  Where- 
fore also  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul,  who  had  learned  it  from 
Him,  when  describing  ecclesiastical  functions,  forbade  that 

i  Tim.  deacons,  not  to  say  bishops,  should  be  double-tongued ;  and 
in  his  rebuke  of  the  Galatians,  he  made  a  broad  declaration, 

Gal.  i,  If  any  one  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye 
have  received,  let  him  be  anathema,  as  I  have  said,  so  say  I 
again.  If  even  an  Angel  from  heaven  should  preach  unto 
you  any  other  Gospel  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be 
anathema.  Since  then  the  Apostle  thus  speaks,  let  these 
men  either  anathematize  the  party  of  Eusebius,  at  least  as 
changing  round  and  professing  what  is  contrary  to  their  sub- 
scriptions ;  or,  if  they  acknowledge  that  their  subscriptions 
were  good,  let  them  not  utter  complaints  against  so  great  a 
Council.  But  if  they  do  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  they 
are  themselves  too  plainly  at  the  sport  of  every  wind  and 
surge,  and  are  influenced  by  opinions,  not  their  own,  but 

r  Thus  S.  Basil  says  the  same  of  the  Hexaem.  i.  2.  vid.  also  Theod.  Grsec. 

Grecian  Sects,  "  We  have  not  the  task  Affect,  i.  p.  707.  &c.  August.  Civ.  Dei, 

of  refuting  their  tenets,  for  they  suffice  xviii.  41.  and  Vincentius's  celebrated 

for    the    overthrow    of    each    other."  CommonitoriumjwmMw. 

Occasion  of  the  present  Epistle.  9 

^f  others,  and  being  such,  are  as  little  worthy  of  deference  CHAP. 
now  as  before,  in  what  they  allege.  Rather  let  them  cease  IL 
to  carp  at  what  they  understand  not;  lest  so  it  be  that  not 
knowing  to  discriminate,  they  at  hazard  call  evil  good  and 
good  evil,  and  think  that  bitter  is  sweet  and  sweet  bitter. 
Doubtless,  they  desire  that  doctrines  which  have  been  judged 
wrong  and  have  been  reprobated  should  gain  the  ascend- 
ancy, and  they  make  violent  efforts  to  prejudice  what  was 
rightly  denned.  Nor  is  there  reason  on  our  part  for  any 
further  explanation,  or  answer  to  their  excuses,  or  for  further 
resistance  on  theirs,  but  for  an  acquiescence  in  what  the 
leaders  of  their  heresy  subscribed;  for  though  the  subse- 
quent change  of  those  Eusebians  was  suspicious  and  immoral, 
their  subscription,  when  they  had  the  opportunity  of  at  least 
some  little  defence  of  themselves,  is  a  certain  proof  of  the 
irreligion  of  their  doctrine.  For  they  did  not  subscribe  with- 
out thereby  condemning  the  heresy,  nor  did  they  condemn  it, 
without  being  encompassed  with  difficulty  and  shame ;  so 
that  to  change  back  again  is  a  proof  of  their  contentious  zeal 
for  irreligion.  There  is  reason  then,  as  I  have  said,  that  the 
present  men  should  keep  quiet ;  but  since  from  an  extraordi- 
nary want  of  modesty,  they  hope  perhaps  to  be  able  to  advo- 
cate this  diabolical8  irreligion  better  than  the  others,  therefore, 
though  in  my  former  letter  written  to  thee,  I  have  already 
argued  at  length  against  them,  notwithstanding,  come  let  us 
now  also  examine  them,  in  each  of  their  separate  statements, 
as  their  predecessors ;  for  now  not  less  than  then  their  heresy 
shall  be  shewn  to  have  no  soundness  in  it,  but  to  be  from 
evil  spirits. 

8  This  is  Athan.'s  deliberate  judg-  5.   Another  reason  of  his  so  accounting 

ment.  vid.  de  Sent.  Dion.  fin.  where  he  them,  was  their  atrocious  cruelty  to- 

says,  "  Who  then  will  continue  to  call  wards  Catholics ;  this  leads  him  else- 

these  men  Christians,  whose  leader  is  the  where  to  break  out.     "O  new  heresy, 

devil,  and  not  rather  diabolical?"  and  that  has  put  on  the  whole  devil  in  ir- 

he  adds,  "not  only  Christ's  foes,  %y-  religious  doctrine  and  conduct!"  Hist. 

ffropuxu,  but  diabolical  also."  In  §.24.  Arian.  §.  66.  also  Alexander,  "  diaboli- 

he  speaks  of  Arius's  "  hatred  of  the  cal,"   ap.  Theod.    Hist.  i.  3.   p.  731. 

truth."    Again,  "  though  the  diabolical  "  satanical,"    ibid.   p.    741.   vid.    also 

men   rave,"  Orat.  iii.  §.  8.  "  friends  of  Socr.  i.   9.    p.  30.   fin.    Hilar.   contr. 

the  devil,  and  his  spirits."  Ad  Ep.  ^Eg.  Const.  17. 



Two  senses  of  the  word,  1.  adoptive,  2.  substantial;  attempts  of  Arians  to 
find  a  third  meaning  between  these;  e.g.  that  our  Lord  only  was  created 
immediately  by  God  ;  Asterius's  view  ;  or  that  our  Lord  alone  partakes 
the  Father.  The  second  and  true  sense  ;  God  begets  as  He  makes,  really  ; 
though  His  creation  and  generation  not  like  man's  ;  His  generation  inde- 
pendent of  time  ;  generation  implies  an  internal,  and  therefore  an  eternal, 
act  in  God  ;  explanation  of  Prov.  8,  22. 

NICEN.  1.  THEY  say  then  what  the  others  held  and  dared  to  main- 
__  ^_tain  before  them;  "  Not  always  Father,  always  Son;  for  the 
*'  Son  was  not  before  His  generation,  but,  as  others,  came  to  be 
from  nothing;  and  in  consequence  God  was  not  always 
Father  of  the  Son  ;  but,  when  the  Son  came  to  be  and  was 
created,  then  was  God  called  His  Father.  For  the  Word  is 
a  creature  and  work,  and  foreign  and  unlike  the  Father  in 
substance;  and  the  Son  is  neither  by  nature  the  Father's 
true  Word,  nor  His  only  and  true  Wisdom;  but  being  a 
creature  and  one  of  the  works,  He  is  by  a  strong  figure  9  called 
Word  and  Wisdom  ;  for  by  the  Word  which  is  in  God  was 
He  made,  as  were  all  things.  Wherefore  the  Son  is  not  true 

2.  Now  it  may  serve  to  make  them  understand  what  they  are 
saying,  to  ask  them  first  this,  what  in  fact  a  son  is,  and  of 
what  is  that  name  significant".  In  truth,  Divine  Scripture 

This  word  is  no-  tained  that  the  word  implied  a  beginning 

ticed  and  protested  against  by  Alex-  of  existence,  they  did  not  dare  to  say  that 

ander,  Socr.  Hist.  i.  6.  p.  11.  a.  by  the  He  was  Son  merely  in  the  sense  in  which 

Semiarians  at  Ancyra,  Epiph.  Hser.  73.  we  are  sons,  though,  as  Athan.  contends, 

n.  5.  by  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  23.  they  necessarily  tended  to  this  conclu- 

and  by  Cyril,  Dial.  ii.  p.  432,  3.  sion,  directly  they  receded  from  the 

1  vid.  ad  Ep.  JEg.  12.  Orat.  i.  §.  5,  Catholic  view.  Thus  Arius  said  that 

6.  de  Synod.  15,  16.  Athanas.  seems  He  was  a  creature,  "  but  not  as  one 

to  have  had  in  mind  Socr.  i.  6.  p.  10,  of  the  creatures."  Orat.  ii.§.  19.  Valens 

1  1  ,  or  the  like.  at  Ariminum  said  the  same.  Jerom.  adv. 

u  vid.  Orat.  i.  $.  38.  The  controversy  Lucifer.  18.  Hilary  says,  that,  not  daring 

turned  on  the  question  what  was  meant  directly  to  deny  that  He  was  God,  the 

by  the  word  "  Son."  Though  the  Arians  Arians  merely  asked  ll  whether  He  was 

would  not  allow  with  the  Catholics  that  a  Son."  de  Trin.  viii.  3.  Athanasius 

our  Lord  was  Son  by  nature,  and  main-  remarks  upon  this  reluctance  to  speak 

Our  Lord's  Sonship  in  not  the  reward  of  virtue.         11 

acquaints  us  with  a  double  sense  of  this  word : — one  which  CHAP. 
Moses  sets  before  us  in  the  Law,  When  thou  shalt  hearken 

to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  keep  all  His  command-  is?  is ; 
ments  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  to  do  that  which  isu>  *• 
right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  ye  shall  be  children 
of  the  Lord  your  God;  as  also  in  the  Gospel,  John  says, 
But  as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  power  to  John  i , 
become  the  sons  of  God : — and  the  other  sense,  that  in  which 
Isaac  is  son  of  Abraham,  and  Jacob  of  Isaac,  and  the  Patri- 
archs of  Jacob.     Now  in  which  of  these  two  senses  do  they 
understand  the  Son  of  God  in  such  fables  as  the  foregoing  ? 
for  I  feel  sure  they  will  issue  in  the  same  irreligious  tenet 
with  the  Eusebians. 

3.  If  in  the  first,  which  belongs  to  those  who  gain  the  name 
by  grace  from  moral  improvement,  and  receive  power  to 
become  sons  of  God,  (for  this  is  what  their  predecessors 
said,)  then  He  would  seem  to  differ  from  us  in  nothing;  no, 
nor  would  He  be  Only-begotten,  as  having  obtained  the  title 
of  Son  as  others  from  His  virtue.  For  granting  what  they  say, 
that,  whereas  His  qualifications  were  foreknown ',  He  therefore  i  Theod. 
received  grace  from  the  first,  the  name,  and  the  glory  of  the 
name,  from  His  very  first  beginning,  still  there  will  be  no  differ- 
ence between  Him  and  those  who  receive  the  name  upon  their 
actions,  so  long  as  this  is  the  ground  on  which  He  as  others  has 
the  character  of  son.  For  Adam  too,  though  he  received  grace 
from  the  first,  and  upon  his  creation  was  at  once  placed  in  para- 
dise, differed  in  no  respect  either  from  Enoch,  who  was  trans- 
lated thither  after  his  birth  on  his  pleasing  God,  or  from  the 
Apostle  who  likewise  was  caught  up  to  paradise  after  his 
actions ;  nay,  not  from  the  thief,  who  on  the  ground  of  his 
confession,  received  a  promise  that  he  should  be  forthwith  in 

out,  challenging  them  to  present  "  the  ibid.i.  l.Epiphaniustoo,Hser.76.p.949. 

heresy  naked,"  de  Sent.  Dionys.  2.  init.  seems  to  say  that  the  elder  Arians  held 

"  No  one,"  he  says  elsewhere,  "puts  the  divine  generation  in  a  sense  in  which 

a  light  under  a  bushel ;  let  them  shew  Aetius  did  not;  that  is,  they  were  not 

the  world  their  heresy  naked."  ad  Ep.  so  consistent  and  definite  as  he.    Athan. 

^Eg.  18.  vid.  ibid.  10.    In  like  manner,  goes  on  to  mention  some  of  the  attempts 

Basil  says  that  (though  Arius  was  really  of  the  Arians  to  find  some  theory  short 

like  Eunomius,  in  faith,  contr.  Eunom.  of  orthodoxy,  yet  short  of  that  extreme 

i.  4.)  Aetius  his  master  was  the  first  to  heresy,  on  the  other  hand,  which  they 

teach  openly,  (<p«»«£a;j)  that  the  Father's  felt  ashamed  to  avow, 
substance  was  unlike,  aviftoios,  the  Son's. 

12   Nor  does  it  mean  that  He  was  created  to  create  others. 

NICEN.      4.  When  thus  pressed,  they  will  perhaps  make  an  answer 

PEF'  which  has  brought  them  into  trouble  many  times  already ; 

*         «  \ye  consider  that  the  Son  has  this  prerogative  over  others, 

and  therefore  is  called  Only -begotten,  because  He  alone  was 

7*y«»«  brought  to  be  by  God  alone,  and  all  other  things  were  created 
by  God  through  the  SonV  Now  I  wonder  who  it  wasy  that 
suggested  to  you  so  futile  and  novel  an  idea  as  that  the 
Father  alone  wrought  with  His  own  hand  the  Son  alone,  and 
that  all  other  things  were  brought  to  be  by  the  Son  as  by  an 

S/wyot/g-under-worker.  If  for  the  toil-sake  God  was  content  with 
making  the  Son  only,  instead  of  making  all  things  at  once, 
this  is  an  irreligious  thought,  especially  in  those  who  know 

is.  40,  the  words  of  Esaias,  The  everlasting  God,  the  Lord,  the 
Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth,  hunyereth  not,  neither  is 
weary;  there  is  no  searching  of  His  understanding. 
Rather  it  is  He  who  gives  strength  to  the  hungry,  and 
through  His  Word  refreshes  the  labouring.  Again,  it  is 
irreligious  to  suppose  that  He  disdained,  -as  if  a  humble 
task,  to  form  the  creatures  Himself  which  came  after  the 
Son ;  for  there  is  no  pride  in  that  God,  who  goes  down  with 
Jacob  into  Egypt,  and  for  Abraham's  sake  corrects  Abimelec 
because  of  Sara,  and  speaks  face  to  face  with  Moses,  himself 
a  man,  and  descends  upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  by  His  secret 
grace  fights  for  the  people  against  Amalec.  However,  you 

Ps.  100,  are  false  in  your  fact,  for  we  are  told,  He  made  us,  and  not 
we  ourselves.  He  it  is  who  through  His  Word  made  all 
things  small  and  great,  and  we  may  not  divide  the  creation, 
and  say  this  is  the  Father's,  and  this  the  Son's,  but  they  are 

ttttf  of  one  God,  who  uses  His  proper  Word  as  a  Hand z,  and  in  Him 
does  all  things.  As  God  Himself  shews  us,  when  He  says, 

x  This  is  celebrated  as  an  explana-  their  heresy  is  alien,  and  not  from  the 

tion  of  the  Anomceans.  vid.  Basil,  contr.  Fathers"  vid.  ii.  §.  34.  and  Socr.  i.  6. 

Eunom.  ii.20,  21.  though  Athan.  speaks  p.  11.  c. 

of  it  as  belonging  to  the  elder  Arians.         z  vid.  infr.  §.  17.  Orat.  ii.  §.  31.  71. 

vid.  Socr.  Hist.  i.  6.  p.  11.  Irenaeus  calls  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit 

y  i.e.  what  is  your  authority?  isitnota  the  Hands  of  God.  Hser.  \\.prcef.  vid. 

novel,  and  therefore  a  wrong  doctrine  ?  also  Hilar.  de  Trin.  vii.  22.  This  image 

vid.infr. §.  13.adSerap.i.3.  AlsoOrat.i.  is  in   contrast  to  that   of  instrument* 

§.  8.   "  "Who  ever  heard  such  doctrine?  orator,  which  the  Arians  would  use  of 

or  whence  or  from  whom  did  they  hear  the  Son,  vid.  Socr.  i.  6.  p.  11.  as  imply  - 

it?    who,   iv hen  they  were  under  cate-  ing  He  was  external  to  God,  whereas 

chising,  spoke  thus  to  them?    If  they  the  word  Hand  implies  His  consubstan- 

themselves  confess  that  they  now  hear  tialifcy  with  the  Father, 
it  for  the  first  time,  they  must  arrant  that 

\or  that  He  alone  could  otdnrc  God's  creative  Jtand.      13 

All  these  things  hath  My  Hand  made;  and  Paul  taught  us  as  CHAP. 
he  had  learned3,  that  There  is  one  God,   from  whom  all  -  — 

Is  66  2 

things  f    and   one   Lord  Jesus  Christ  >  through   whom   alliCorS\ 
tilings.     Thus  He,  always  as  now,  speaks  to  the  sun  and  it6- 
rises,  and  commands  the  clouds  and  it  rains  upon  one  place  ; 
and  where  it  does  not  rain,  it  is  dried  up.     And  He  bids  the 
earth  to  bear  fruit,  and  fashions  Jeremias  in  the  womb.     But 
if  He  now  does  all  this,  assuredly  at  the  beginning  also  He 
did  not  disdain  to  make  all  things  Himself  through  the  Word  ; 
for  these  are  but  parts  of  the  whole. 

5.  But  let  us  suppose  that  the  other  creatures  could  not  §.  g. 
endure  to  be  wrought  by  the  absolute  Hand  of  the  Ingenerate1,^*™" 
and  therefore  the  Son  alone  was  brought  into  being  by 

Father  alone,  and  other  things  by  the  Son  as  an  underworker^'24*fin* 
and  assistant,  for  this  is  what  Asterius  the  sacrificerb  has 
written,  and  Anus  has  transcribed2  and  bequeathed  to  his^vid.also 
own  friends,  and  from  that  time  they  use  this  form  of  words,  ™fr  j|* 
broken  reed  as  it  is,  being  ignorant,  the  bewildered  men,  how  Synod. 
brittle  it  is.     For  if  it  was  impossible  for  things  generated*' 
to  bear  the  hand  of  God,  and  you  hold  the  Son  to  be  one  of 
their  number,  how  was  He  too  equal  to  this  formation  by 
God  alone  ?   and  if  a  Mediator  became  necessary  that  things 
generated  might  come  to  be,  and  you  hold  the  Son  to  be 
generate,  then  must  there  have  been  some  medium  before 
Him,  for  His  creation  ;  and  that  Mediator  himself  again  being 
a  creature,  it  follows  that  he  too  needed  another  Mediator  for 
his  own  constitution.     And  though  we  were  to  devise  another, 
we  must  first  devise  his  Mediator,  so  that  we  shall  never  come 
to  an  end.     And  thus  a  Mediator  being  ever  in  request,  never 
will  the  creation  be  constituted,  because  nothing  generate,  as 
you  say,  can  bear  the  absolute  hand  of  the  Ingenerate".    And 
if,  on  your  perceiving  the  extravagance  of  this,  you  begin  to 
say  that  the  Son,  though  a  creature,  was  made  capable  of 

3  (Mt62,v  IS/Wxiv.   implying  the  tra-  Orat.  i.  §.  31.  ii.  §.  24.  28.  37.  40.  iii. 

ditional  nature  of  the  teaching.     And  §.  2.  60.  de  Synod.  §.  18.  19.    He  was 

so  St.  Paul  himself,  1  Cor.  15,  3.  vid.  by  profession  a  Sophist,  and  a  pupil  of 

for  an  illustration,  supr.  §.  5.  init.  also  Lucian's.  He  lapsed  in  the  persecution 

note  y.  of  Maximian,  and  sacrificed,  as  inti- 

b  Asterius  is  one  of  the  most  famous  mated  in  the  text. 

of  the  elder  Arians,  and  his  work  in         c  vid.  infr.  §.  24.  Orat.  i.  §.  15.  fin. 

defence    of    the    heresy   is   frequently  ii.  §.  29.  Epiph.  Hser.  76.  p.  951. 
quoted  by    Athanasiu*.    vid.  infr.  20. 


NICEN.  being  made  by  the  Ingenerate,  then  it  follows  that  other 
— ^-  things  also,  though  generated,  are  capable  of  being  wrought 
immediately  by  the  Ingenerate;  for  the  Son  too  is  but  a 
creature  in  your  judgment,  as  all  of  them.  And  accordingly 
the  generation  of  the  Word  is  superfluous,  according  to  your 
irreligious  and  futile  imagination,  God  being  sufficient  for  the 
immediate  formation  of  all  things,  and  all  things  generate 
being  capable  of  sustaining  His  absolute  hand. 

6.  These  irreligious  men  then  having  so  little  mind  amid 

their  madness,  let  us  see  whether  this  particular  sophism  be 

not  even  more  irrational  than  the  others.     Adam  was  created 

alone  by  God  alone  through  the  Word;  yet  no  one  would 

say  that  Adam  had  any  prerogative  over  other  men,  or  was 

different  from  those  who  came  after  him,  granting  that  he  alone 

was  made  and  fashioned  by  God  alone,  and  we  all  spring 

from  Adam,  and  consist  according  to  succession  of  the  race, 

so  long  as  he  was  fashioned  from  the  earth  as  others,  and  at 

§.  9.  first  not  being,  afterwards  came  to  be.     But  though  we  were 

to  allow  some  prerogative  to  the  Protoplast  as  having  been 

vouchsafed  the  hand  of  God,  still  it  must  be  one  of  honour 

not  of  nature.     For  he  came  of  the  earth,  as  other  men  ;  and 

the  hand  which  then  fashioned  Adam,  now  also  and  ever  is 

fashioning  and  giving  entire  consistence  to  those  who  come 

after  him.     And  God  Himself  declares  this  to  Jeremias,  as  1 

Jer.i,5. said  before;    Before  I  formed  thee   in  the  womb,  I  knew 

thee ;  and  so  He  says  of  all,  All  those  things  hath  My  hand 

I*. 66, 2.  made ;    and   again   by   Esaias,    Thus   saith    the   Lord,   thy 

Is.  44,   redeemer,  and  He  that  formed  thee  from  the  womb,  I  am 

24<        the  Lord  that  maketh  all  things ;  that  stretcheth  forth  the 

heavens  alone ;  that  spreadeth  abroad  the  earth  by  Myself. 

Ps.  119,  And  David,  knowing  this,  says  in  the  Psalm,  Thy  hands  have 

made  me  and  fashioned  me',  and  He  who  says  in  Esaias, 

Is.  49,5.  TJius  saith  the  Lord  who  formed  Me  from  the  womb  to  be 

His  servant,  signifies   the    same.     Therefore,  in   respect  of 

nature,  he  differs  nothing  from  us  though  he  precede  us  in 

time,  so  long  as  we  all  consist  and  are  created  by  the  same 

hand.     If  then   these   be   your   thoughts,   O  Arians,  about 

the  Son  of  God  too,  that  thus  He  subsists  and  came  to  be, 

then  in  your  judgment  He  will  differ  nothing  on  the  score  of 

nature  from  others,  so  long  as  He  too  was  not,  and  came  to  be, 

His  Sonship  does  not  mean  that  He  only  partakes  the  Father.  15 

and  the  name  was  by  grace  united  to  Him  in  His  creation  CHAP. 
for  His  virtue's  sake.     For  He  Himself  is  one  of  those,  from    IIL 
what  you  say,  of  whom  the  Spirit  says  in  the  Psalms,  He  Ps-33,9. 
spake  the  word,  and  they  were  made ;  He  commanded,  and 
they  u-ere  created.     If  so,  who  was  it  to  whom  God  gave 
command d  for  the  Son's  creation  ?  for  a  Word  there  must  be  to 
whom  God   gave    command,  and   in  whom   the   works   are 
created;  but  ye  have  no  other  to  shew  than  the  Word  ye 
deny,   unless   indeed   you   should   devise   again   some   new 

7.  "  Yes,"  they  will  say,  "  we  have  another ;"  (which  indeed 
I  have  formerly  heard  the  Eusebians  use,)  "  on  this  score  do 
we   consider   that   the  Son  of  God   has  a   prerogative  over 
others,  and  is  called  Only-begotten,  because  He  alone  par- 
takes the   Father,  and   all   other   things  partake   the  Son." 
Thus  they  weaiy  themselves  in  changing  and  varying  their 
professions,  like  so  many  hues ;  however,  this  shall  not  save  ad 
them  from  an  exposure,  as  men  who  speak  words  to  no  pur-  Se™P- 
pose  out  of  the  earth,  and  wallow  as  in  the  mire  of  their  own 
devices.     For   If  He  were    called  God's   Son,  and  we   the  §.10. 
Son's  sons,  their  fiction  were  plausible  ;  but  if  we  too  are  said 
to  be  sons  of  that  God,  of  whom  He  is  Son,  then  we  too 
partake  the  Father6,  who  says,  /  have  begotten  and  exalted  Is.  1,2. 
children.     For   if  we   did  not   partake  Him,  He  had  not 
said,  /  have  begotten  ;  but  if  He  Himself  begat  us,  no  other 
than   He  is  our  Father f.     And,  as   before,  it  matters  not, 
whether  the  Son  has  something  more  and  was  made  first,  but 

d  In  like  manner,  "Men  were  made  vid.  de  Synod.  §.  51.  contr.  Gent.  46. 

through  the  Word,  when   the   Father  fin.     Hence  St.  Austin  says,  "  As  the 

Himself  willed."    Orat.  i.  63.    '   The  Father  has  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He 

"Word  forms    matter   as   injoined   by,  given  also  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in 

and  ministering  to,  God."  ^efrurrt-  Himself,   not  by  participating,  but  in 

fttvtf  xa,}  Ixtu^yuv.  ibid.  ii.  $.  22.  contr.  Himself.     For  we  have  not  life  in  our- 

Gent.  46.  selves,  but  in  our  God.     But  that  Fa- 

e  His  argument  is,  that  if  the  Son  ther,  who  has  life  in  Himself,  begat  a 

5?,  but  partook  the  Father  in  the  sense  in  Son  such,  as  to  have  life  in  Himself, 

which  we  partake  the  Son,  then  the  not  to  become  partaker  of  life,  but  to  be 

.Son  would  not  impart  to  us  the  Father,  Himself  life;  and  of  that  life  to  make 

jbut  Himself,  and  would  be  a  separat-  us  partakers."     Serm.  127.  de  Verb. 

Ping  as  well  as  uniting  medium  between  Evang.  9. 

the  Father  and  us ;  whereas  He  brings         f  "  To    say    God    is    wholly   par- 

us  so  near  to  the  Father,  that  we  are  taken,  is  the  same  as  saying  that  God 

the   Father's   children,   not  His,    and  begets."    Orat.  i.  §.  16.     And   in   like 

therefore  He  must  be  Himself  one  with  manner,  our  inferior  participation  in- 

the  Father,  or  the  Father  must  be  in  Him  volves  such  sonship  as  is  vouchsafed 

with  an  incomprehensible  completeness,  to  us. 

16   No  sense  of  Sonship  can  be  maintained  but  11te  Catholic* 

NTCEN.WC  something  less,  and  were  made  afterwards,  so  long  as  we 
_Jl£l  all  partake,  and  are  called  sons,  of  the  same  Father g.     For 
the  more  or  less  does  not  indicate  a  different  nature ;   but 
attaches  to  each  according  to  the  practice  of  virtue ;  and  one 
is  placed  over  ten  cities,  another  over  five ;  and  some  sit  on 
twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel;  and  others 
Mat. 25,  hear  the  words,  Come,  ye  blessed  of  My  Father,  and,  Well 
ib.  5  32.  done,  good  and  faithful  servant.     With  such  ideas,  how- 
ever, no  wonder  they  imagine  that  of  such  a  Son  God  was 
not  always  Father,  and  such  a  Son  was  not  always  in  being, 
but  was  generated  from  nothing  as  a  creature,  and  was  not 
before  His   generation ;   for  such   an  one  is  other  than  the 
True  Son  of  God. 

8.  But  to  persist  in  such  teaching  does  not  consist  with 
piety h,  for  it  is  rather  the  tone  of  thought  of  Sadducees  and 
Samosatene ! ;  it  remains  then  to  say  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
so  called  according  to  the  other  sense,  in  which  Isaac 
was  son  of  Abraham ;  for  what  is  naturally  begotten  from  any 
one  and  does  not  accrue  to  him  from  without,  that  in  the 
nature  of  things  is  a  son,  and  that  is  what  the  name 
u-  implies1*.  Is  then  the  Son's  generation  one  of  human1  af- 

£  And   so   in    Orat.   ii.   §.    19 — 22.  was  that  our  Lord  became  the  Son  by 

"  Though  the  Son  surpassed  other  things  #£oxoxri,  or   growth   in   holiness,  (vid. 

on  a  comparison,  yet  He  were  equally  Luke  2,  52.  T'g«Ex«a'r«.)  "advancing  as 

a  creature  with  them ;  for  even  in  those  a  man,"  Orat.  iii.  §.  51.   Or  he  may  be 

things  which  are  of  a  created  nature,  alluding  to  his  doctrine  of  our  Lord's 

we  may  find   some   things   surpassing  predestination,  referred  to  supr.  $.  6. 

others.      Star,    for     instance,     differs  dr.  fin.  for  Paul  spoke  of  Him  as  "  God 

from  star  in  glory,  yet  it  does  not  fol-  predestined  before  ages,  but  from  Mary 

low  that  some  are  sovereign,  and  others  receiving  the  origin  of  His  existence." 

serve,  &c."  ii.  §.  20.     And  so  Gregory  contr.  Apoll.  i.  20. 
Nyssen  contr.  Eunom.  iii.  p.  132.  D.         k  The  force  lies  in  the  word  <f>vrti, 

Epiph.  Hser.  76.  p.  970.  "naturally, "which  the  Council  express- 

h  i.  e.  since  it  is  impossible  they  ed  still  more  definitely  by  "substance." 
can  persist  in  evasions  so  manifest  as  Thus  Cyril  says,  "  the  term  '  Son'  de- 
these,  nothing  is  left  but  to  take  the  notes  the  substantial  origin  from  the  Fa- 
other  sense  of  the  word,  ther."  Dial.  5.  p.  573.  And  Gregory 

1  Paul  of  Samosata  is  called  Samo-  Nyssen,  "  the  title  '  Son'  does  not  sim- 

satene,  as  John  of  Damascus  Damas-  ply  express  the  being  from  another," 

cene,  from  the  frequent  adoption  of  the  (vid.  infra,  §.  19.)  but  relationship  ac- 

names  Paul  and   John.     Hence    also  cording  to  nature,    contr.    Eunom.  ii. 

John  Chrysostom,  Peter  Chrysologus,  p.  91.    Again  St.  Basil  says,  that  Father 

John  Philoponus.      Paul  was   Bishop  is  "  a  term  of  relationship,"  elxnuirnas . 

of  Antioch  in  the  middle  of,  the  third  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  24.  init.     And  hence 

century,  and  was  deposed  for  a  sort  of  he  remarks,  that  we  too  are  properly, 

Sabellianism.     He  was  the   friend   of  Kugius,  sons  of  God,  as  becoming  related 

Lucian,  from  whose  school  the  principal  to  Him  through  works  of  the  Spirit. 

Arians  issued.     His  prominent  tenet,  ii.  23.     So  also  Cyril,  loc.  oil.     Else- 

to  which  Athan.  seems  here  to  allude,  where,  St.  Basil  defines  father  u  one 

Divine  generation  is  not  as  human.  17 

fection  ?    (for  this  perhaps,  as  their  predecessors',  they  too  CHAP. 

will  be  ready  to  object  in  their  ignorance ;) — in  no  wise ;  for '— 

God  is  not  as  man,  nor  man  as  God.  Men  are  created 
of  matter,  and  that  passible l ;  but  God  is  immaterial  and  }*»tw 
incorporeal.  And  if  so  be  the  same  terms  are  used  of  God 
and  man  in  divine  Scripture,  yet  the  clear-sighted,  as  Paul 
injoins,  will  study  it,  and  thereby  discriminate,  and  dispose 
of  what  is  written  according  to  the  nature  of  each  subject, 
and  avoid  any  confusion  of  sense,  so  as  neither  to  conceive 
of  the  things  of  God  in  a  human  way,  nor  to  ascribe  the 
things  of  man  to  God81.  For  this  were  to  mix  wine  with 
water2,  and  to  place  upon  the  altar  strange  fire  with  that2vid. 

,  .   ,    .      ,.    .  Orar.iii. 

which  is  divine.  §.  35. 

9.  For  God  creates,  and  to  create  is  also  ascribed  to  men ;  §.  11. 
and  God  has  being3,  and  men  are  said  to  be,  having  received 3 «»  IM. 
from  God  this  gift  also.  Yet  does  God  create  as  men  do  ? 
or  is  His  being  as  man's  being?  Perish  the  thought;  we 
understand  the  terms  in  one  sense  of  God,  and  in  another  of 
men.  For  God  creates,  in  that  He  calls  what  is  not  into 
being,  needing  nothing  thereunto ;  but  men  work  some 
existing  material,  first  praying,  and  so  gaining  the  wit  to 
make,  from  that  God  who  has  framed  all  tilings  by  His  proper 
Word.  And  again  men,  being  incapable  of  self-existence, 
are  inclosed  in  place,  and  consist  in  the  Word  of  God ;  but 

who  gives  to  another  the  origin  of  bring  and  wishes  to  convey  by  it  a  religious 

according  to  a  nature  like  his  own;"  sense."  vid.  also  $.  21.     He  says,  that 

and   a   son   "  one   who   possesses   the  Catholics  are  able  to  "  speak  freely," 

origin  of  being  from  another  by  gene-  or  to  expatiate,  frapfvffiet£eftifaj   "  out 

ration."   contr.   Eun.  ii.  22.     On  the  of  Divine  Scripture."  Orat.  i.  $.  9.  vid. 

other  hand,  the  Arians  at  the  first  de-  de  Sent.  Dionys.  $.  20.  init.     Again: 

nied  that  "  by  nature  there  was  any  "  The  devil  spoke  from  Scripture,  but 

Son  of  God."  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  732.  was   silenced   by   the    Saviour;    Paul 

1  vid.  Eusebius,  in  his  Letter  sub-  spoke  from  profane  writers,  yet,  being 

joined :   also  Socr.  Hist.  i.  8.  Epiphan.  a  saint,  he  has  a  religious  meaning." 

Hser.  69.  n.  8.  and  15.  de  Syn.  §.  39.   also   ad   Ep.   jEg.  8. 

m  One  of  the  characteristic  points  in  Again,  speaking  of  the  apparent  con- 

Athanasius  is  his  constant  attention  to  trariety   between    two   Councils,    "  It 

the  sense  of  doctrine,  or  the  meaning  were  unseemly  to  make  the  one  conflict 

of  writers,  in  preference  to  the  words  with  the  other,  for  all  their  members 

used.     Thus  he  scarcely  uses  the  sym-  are  fathers  ;  and  it  were  profane  to  de- 

bol  iftoovffior,  one  in  substance,  through-  cide  that  these  spoke  well  and  those  ill, 

out  his  Orations,  and  in  the  de  Synod,  for  all  of  them  have  slept  in  Christ." 

acknowledges  the  Semiarians  as  bre-  §.  43.  also  §.  47.     Again:  "  Not  the 

thren.     Hence  infr.  §.  18.  he  says,  that  phrase,  but  the  meaning  and  the  reli- 

orthodox  doctrine  "is  revered  by  all,  gious  life,  is  the  recommendation  of  the 

though  expressed  in  strange  language,  faithful."  ad  Ep.  JEg.  §.  9. 
provided  the  speaker  means  religiously, 

18        An  Cod  creates,  so  He  begets,  incomprehensibly. 

NICEN.  God  is  self-existent,  inclosing  all  things,  and  inclosed   by 

—  none ;  within  all  according  to  His  own  goodness  and  power, 

yet  without  all  in  His  proper  nature n.     As  then  men  create 

not   as  God   creates,  as  their  being  is  not    such  as  God's 

being,  so  men's  generation  is  in  one  way,  and  the  Son  is 

from  the  Father  in  another0.     For  the  offspring  of  men  are 

portions  of  their  fathers,  since  the  very  nature  of  bodies  is 

not  uncompounded,  but  transitive p,  and  composed  of  parts ; 

1  i^/t-and  men  lose  their  substance1  in  begetting,  and  again  they 

*""        gain  substance  from  the  accession  of  food.     And  on  this 

account  men  in  their  time  become  fathers  of  many  children ; 

»  Via.  also  Incarn.  $.  17.  This 
contrast  is  not  commonly  found  in 
ecclesiastical  writers,  who  are  used 
to  say  that  God  is  present  every- 
where, in  substance  as  well  as  by  ener- 
gy or  power.  S.  Clement,  however, 
expresses  himself  still  more  strongly  in 
the  same  way,  "  In  substance  far  off, 
(for  how  can  the  generate  come  close 
to  the  Ingenerate  ?)  but  most  close  in 
power,  in  which  the  universe  is  embo- 
somed." Strom.  2.  circ.  init.  but  the 
parenthesis  explains  his  meaning,  vid. 
Cyril.  Thesaur.  6.  p.  44.  The  common 
doctrine  of  the  Fathers  is,  that  God  is 
present  every  where  in  substance,  vid. 
Petav.  de  Deo,  iii.  8.  and  9.  It  may 
be  remarked,  that  S.  Clement  continues 
"  neither  inclosing  nor  inclosed." 

0  In  Almighty  God  is  the  perfection 
and  first  pattern  of  what  is  seen  in  sha- 
dow in  human  nature,  according  to  the 
imperfection  of  the  subject  matter ;  and 
this  remark  applies,  as  to  creation,  so  to 
generation.  Athanasius  is  led  to  state 
this  more  distinctly  in  another  connec- 
tion in  Orat.  i.  §.  21.  fin.  "  It  belongs 
to  the  Godhead  alone,  that  the  Father  is 
pi'operly  (jcvtfug)  Father,  and  tlie  Son 
proper///  (xvtfut)  Son;  and  in  Them 
and  Them  only  does  it  hold  that  the 
Father  i.s  ever  Father,  and  the  Son  ever 
Son."  Accordingly  he  proceeds,  short- 
ly afterwards,  as  in  the  text,  to  argue, 
"  [The  heretics]  ought  in  creation  also  to 
supply  God  with  materials,  and  so  to 
deny  Him  to  be  Creator ;  but  if  the  bare 
idea  of  God  transcends  such  thoughts, 
and  a  man  believes  that  He  is  in  being, 
not  as  we  are,  and  yet  in  being,  as  God, 
and  that  He  creates  not  as  man  creates, 
but  yet  creates  as  God,  therefore  He 
begets  also  not  as  men  beget,  but 
begets  as  God.  For  God  does  not 

make  men  His  pattern,  but  rather  we 
men,  for  that  God  is  properly  and  alone 
truly  Father  of  His  Son,  are  also  called 
fathers  of  our  own  children,  for  '  of 
Him  is  every  fatherhood  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  named.'  §.  23.  The  Se- 
mi arians  at  Ancyra  quote  the  same 
text  for  the  same  doctrine.  Epiphan. 
Hser.  73.  5.  As  do  Cyril,  in  Joan, 
iii.  p.  24.  Thesaur.  32.  p.  281.  and  Da- 
mascene de  Fid.  Orth.  i.  8.  The  same 
parallel,  as  existing  between  creation 
and  generation,  is  insisted  on  by  Isidor. 
Pel.  Ep.  iii.  355.  Basil.  contr.Eun.  iv.  p. 
280.  A.  Cyril  Thesaur.  6.  p.  43.  Epiph. 
Hser.  69.  36.  and  Gregor.  Naz.  Orat. 
20.  9.  who  observes  that  God  creates 
with  a,  word,  Ps.  148,  5.  which  evidently 
transcends  human  creations.  Theodoras 
Abucara  with  the  same  object,  draws 
out  the  parallel  of  life,  £&»»},  as  Athan. 
that  of  being,  tivett.  Opusc.  iii.  p.  420 — 

P  vid.  de  Synod.  §.  51.  Orat.  i.  §. 
15.  16.  ptvfr*.  vid.  Orat.  i.  §.  28. 
Bas.  in.  Eun.  ii.  23.  fan.  Bas.  in  Eun. 
ii.  6.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  28. 22.  Vid.  contr. 
Gentes,  §.  41.  where  Athan.  without 
reference  to  the  Arian  controversy, draws 
out  the  contrast  between  the  Godhead 
and  human  nature.  "  The  nature  of 
things  generated,  as  having  its  subsist- 
ence from  nothing,  is  of  a  transitive 
(ptvfrtii  and  feeble  and  mortal  sort, 
considered  by  itself;  seeing  then  that  it 
was  transitive  and  dissoluble,  lest  this 
should  take  place,  and  it  should  be  re- 
solved into  its  original  nothing,  God  go- 
verns and  sustains  it  all,  by  His  own 
Word,  who  is  Himself  God,"  and  who, 
as  he  proceeds,  §.  42.  "  remaining  Him- 
self immoveable  with  the  Father,  moves 
all  things  in  His  own  consistence,  as 
each  may  seem  fit  to  His  Father." 

Divine  generation  is  not  material,  but  spiritual.       19 

but  God,  being  without  parts,  is  Father  of  the  Son  without  CHAP. 
partition  or  passion ;    for  there  is  neither  effluence !  q  of  the  - 

Immaterial,  nor  accession  from  without,  as  among  men ;  and 
being  uncompounded  in  nature,  He  is  Father  of  One  Only 
Son.  This  is  why  He  is  Only-begotten,  and  alone  in  the 
Father's  bosom,  and  alone  is  acknowledged  by  the  Father  to 
be  from  Him,  saying,  This  is  My  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  Mat.  3, 
well  pleased.  And  He  too  is  the  Father's  Word,  from  which 
may  be  understood  the  impassible  and  impartitive  nature  of 
the  Father,  in  that  not  even  a  human  word  is  begotten  with 
passion  or  partition,  much  less  the  Word  of  God r.  Where- 
fore also  He  sits,  as  Word,  at  the  Father's  right  hand ;  for 
where  the  Father  is,  there  also  is  His  Word;  but  we,  as 
His  works,  stand  in  judgment  before  Him  ;  and  He  is 
adorable,  because  He  is  Son  of  the  adorable  Father,  but  we 
adore,  confessing  Him  Lord  and  God,  because  we  are 
creatures  and  other  than  He. 

10.  The  case  being  thus,  let  who  will  among  them  consider  §.  12. 
the  matter,  so  that  one  may  abash  them  by  the  following  ques- 
tion; Is  it  right  to  say  that  what  is  God's  offspring  and  proper 
to  Him  is  out  of  nothing  ?  or  is  it  reasonable  in  the  very  idea, 
that  what  is  from  God  has  accrued  to  Him,  that  a  man  should 
dare  to  say  that  the  Son  was  not  always  ?  For  in  this  again 
the  generation  of  the  Son  exceeds  and  transcends  the 
thoughts  of  man,  that  we  become  fathers  of  our  own  children 
in  time,  since  we  ourselves  first  were  not  and  then  came  into 
being;  but  God,  in  that  He  ever  is,  is  ever  Father  of  the  Son*. 

1  S.  Cyril,  Dial.  iv.  init.  p.  505,  E.  Wisdom  is  one,  substantial  and  sub- 
speaks  of  the  $(>v\\ou[*.lvn  etvoppori ;  and  sisting."  Athan.  Orat.  iv.  1.  fin. 
disclaims  it,  Thesaur.  6.  p.  43.  Atha-  8  "  Man,"  says  S.  Cyril,  inasmuch 
nasius  disclaims  it,  Expos.  §.  1.  Orat.  i.  as  He  had  a  beginning  of  being,  also 
§.  21.  So  does  Alexander,  ap.  Theod.  has  of  necessity  a  beginning  of  beget- 
Hist.  i.  3.  p.  743.  On  the  other  hand,  ting,  as  what  is  from  Him  is  a  thing 

Athanasius  quotes  it  in  a  passage  which  generate,   but if    God's   substance 

he  adduces   from  Theognostus,  infra,  transcend  time,  or  origin,  or  interval, 

§.  25.  and  from  Dionysius,  de  Sent.  D.  His  generation  too  will  transcend  these ; 

§.23.andOrigenusesit,  Periarchon,i.2.  nor  does  it  deprive  the  Divine  Nature  of 

It  is  derived  from  Wisd.  vii.  25.  the  power  of  generating,  that  it  doth 

r  The  title  "  Word"  implies  the  in-  not  this  in  time.     For  other  than  hu- 

effable  mode  of  the  Son's  generation,  as  man  is  the  manner  of  divine  generation  ,• 

distinct    from   material  parallels,   vid.  and  together  with  God's  existing  is  His 

Gregory    Nyssen,    contr.   Eunom.   iii.  generating  implied,  and  the  Son  was  in 

r!07.  Chrysostom  in  Joan.  Horn.  2.  Him  by  generation,  nor  did  His  gene- 

4.   Cyril    Alex.   Thesaur.  5.  p.  37.  ration  precede  His  existence,  but  He 

Also  it  implies  that  there  is  but  One  was  always,  and  that  by  generation." 

Son.  vid.  infra,  §.  16.    "  As  the  Origin  Thesaur.  v.  p.  35. 
is    one    substance,   so    its   Word    and 

c  2 

20  As  is  symbolized  by  the  words  Light,  Fountain,  Life,  fyc. 

NICEN.  And  the  generation  of  mankind  is  brought  home  to  us  from 
PEF'   things  that  are  parallel ;  but,  since  no  one  knoweth  the  Son  but 
ar?**11'  the  Father,  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and 
he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him,  therefore  the  sacred 
writers  to  whom  the  Son  has  revealed  Him,  have  given  us  a 
Heb.  i,  certain  image  from  things  visible,  saying,  Who  is  the  brightness 
ps>  36    of  His  glory, and  the  Expression  of  His  Person ;  and  again,  For 
9-       '  with  Thee  is  the  well  of  life,  and  in  Thy  light  shall  we  see 
Bar.  3,  light ;  and  when  the  Word  chides  Israel,  He  says,  Thou  hast 
forsaken  the  Fountain  of  wisdom ;    and  this  Fountain  it  is 
Jer.  2,   which  says,  They  have  forsaken  Me  the  fountain  of  living 
^vid  Ep  watt*'8'-     And  mean  indeed  and  very  dim  is  the  illustration1 
ad      compared  with  what  we  desiderate;   but  yet  it  is  possible 
from  it  to  understand  something  above  man's  nature,  instead 
669.a.b.0f  thinking  the  Son's  generation  to  be  on  a  level  with  ours. 
For  who  can  even  imagine  that  the  radiance  of  light  ever  was 
not,  so  that  he  should  dare  to  say  that  the  Son  was  not  always, 
or  that  the  Son  was  not  before  His  generation  ?    or  who  is 
capable  of  separating  the  radiance  from  the  sun,  or  to  conceive 
of  the  fountain  as  ever  void  of  life,  that  he  should  madly  say, 
John  14,"  The   Son  is   from  nothing,"  who  says,  /  am  the  life,  or 
ib.v.  9.  "  alien  to  the  Father's  substance,"  who  says,  He  that  hath 
seen   Me,   hath  seen   the  Father  ?   for  the   sacred  writers 
wishing  us  thus  to  understand,  have  given  these  illustrations ; 
and  it  is  indecent  and  most  irreligious,  when  Scripture  con- 
tains such  images,  to  form  ideas  concerning  our  Lord  from 
others  which  are  neither  in  Scripture,  nor  have  any  religious 

§.13.  11.  Therefore  let  them  tell  us,  from  what  teacher  or  by  what 
tradition  they  derived  these  notions  concerning  the  Saviour  ? 
Prov.  s, "  We  have  read,"  they  will  say,  "  in  the  Proverbs,  The  Lord 
2  vid.  hath  created  Me  a  beginning  of  His  ways  unto  His  works  * ; 
Srou  h'^s  ^e  Eusebians  used  to  insist  on",  and  you  write  me  word, 


*  vid.  infra  passim.    All  these  titles,  is  neither  creature,  nor  part  of  Him 

'  Word,   Wisdom,  Light,"  &c.   serve  whose  Word  He  is,  nor  an  offspring 

to   guard  the   title   "Son"  from    any  passibly  begotten."  Orat.  i.  §.  28. 

notions  of  parts   or   dimensions,  e.  g.  "  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  quotes  it  in 

He  is   not  composed  of  parts,  but  his  Letter  to  Paulinus,   ap.  Theodor. 

being  impassible  and  single,  He  is  im-  Hist.  i.  5.     And  Eusebius  of  Ctesarea 

passibly  and  indivisibly  Father  of  the  Demonstr.  Evang.  v.  1. 
Son... for... the   Word    and    Wisdom 

Creation  is  an  external  act,  generation  an  internal.     21 

that  the  present  men  also,  though  overthrown  and  confuted  CHAP. 
by  an  abundance  of  arguments,  still  were  putting  about  in 

every  quarter  this  passage,  and  saying  that  the  Son  was  one 
of  the  creatures,  and  reckoning  Him  with  things  generated1. 
But  they  seem  to  me  to  have  a  wrong  understanding  of  this 
passage  also  ;  for  it  has  a  religious  and  very  orthodox  sense, 
which,  had  they  understood,  they  would  not  have  blasphemed 
the  Lord  of  glory.  For  on  comparing  what  has  been  above 
stated  with  this  passage,  they  will  find  a  great  difference  between 
them  x.  For  what  man  of  right  understanding  does  not  perceive, 
that  what  are  created  and  made  are  external  to  the  maker  ; 
but  the  Son,  as  the  foregoing  argument  has  shewn,  exists  not 
externally,  but  from  the  Father  who  begat  Him  ?  for  man  too 
both  builds  a  house  and  begets  a  son,  and  no  one  would 
mismatch  things,  and  say  that  the  house  or  the  ship  were 
begotten  by  the  builder2,  but  the  Son  was  created  and  made  by  *  Scrap. 
him  ;  nor  again  that  the  house  was  an  image  of  the  maker,  "' 
but  the  Son  unlike  Him  who  begat  Him  ;  but  rather  he  will 
confess  that  the  Son  is  an  image  of  the  Father,  but  the  house 
a  work  of  art,  unless  his  mind  be  disordered,  and  he  beside 
himself.  Plainly,  divine  Scripture,  which  knows  better  than 
any  the  nature  of  every  thing,  says  through  Moses,  of  the 
creatures,  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 

earth;   but   of  the  Son   it   introduces  the   Father   Himself1' 
saying,   I  have   begotten  Thee  from   the   womb   before, 
morning  star  ;  and  again,  Thou  art  My  Son,  this  day  have  p'St  2  7. 
/  begotten    TJtee.     And  the   Lord  says  of  Himself  in   the 
Proverbs,  Before  all  the  hills  He  begets  Me  ;  and  concerning  Prov.  8, 
things  generated  and  created  John  speaks,  All  things 

made  by  Him;  but  preaching  of  the  Lord,  he  says,  The3- 
Only-begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He 
hath  declared  Him.  If  then  son,  therefore  not  creature; 
if  creature,  not  son  ;  for  great  is  the  difference  between 
them,  and  son  and  creature  cannot  be  the  same,  unless  his 
substance  be  considered  to  be  at  once  from  God,  and  external 
to  God. 

*  i.  e.   "  Granting   that  the  primd  His  creation,  that  we  must  interpret 

/acz>  impression  of  this  text  is  in  favour  this   text  by  them.     It  cannot  mean 

of  our  Lord's  being  a  creature,  yet  so  that  our  Lord  was  simply  created,  be- 

many   arguments   have   been    already  cause  we  have  already  shewn  that  He 

brought,  and   may  be   added,  against  is  not  external  to  His  Father." 

•22         The  Son  teas  created  when  He  came  in  our  flesh. 

NICEN.      12.  "  Has  then  the  passage  no  meaning  ?"  for  this,  like  a 
PEF-   swarm  of  gnats,  they  are  droning  about  us y.   No  surely,  it  is  not 
§'  ^'  without  meaning,  but  has  a  very  apposite  one;   for  it  is  true 
to  say  that  the  Son  was  created  too,  but  this  took  place  when 
He  became  man ;  for  creation  belongs  to  man.     And  any  one 
may  find  this  sense  duly  given  in  the  divine  oracles,  who, 
instead  of  accounting   their   study  a  secondary  matter,  in- 
vestigates the  time  and  characters2,  and  the  object,  and  thus 
studies  and  ponders  what  he  reads.     Now  as  to  the  season 
spoken  of,  he  will  find  for  certain  that,  whereas  the  Lord 
1  «;*»«»  always  is,  at  length  in  fulness  of  the  ages1  He  became  man ; 
and  whereas  He  is  Son  of  God,  He  became  Son  of  man  also. 
And   as  to  the  object  he  will  understand,  that,  wishing  to 
annul  our  death,  He  took  on  Himself  a  body  from  the  Virgin 
Mary ;    that  by  offering  this  unto  the  Father  a  sacrifice  for 
all,  He  might  deliver  us  all,  who  by  fear  of  death  were  all 
Heb.  2,  our  life  through  subject  to  bondage.     And  as  to  the  character, 
it  is  indeed  the  Saviour's,  but  is  said  of  Him  when  He  took 
Prov.  8,  a  body  and  said,  The  Lord  has  created  Me  a  beginning  of 
His  ways  unto  His  works.     For  as  it  properly  belongs  to 
God's  Son  to  be  everlasting,  and  in  the  Father's  bosom,  so 
on  His  becoming  man,  the  words  befitted  Him,   TJie  Lord 
created  Me.     For  then  it  is  said  of  Him,  and  He  hungered, 
and   He    thirsted,  and  He  asked  where   Lazarus   lay,  and 
ssent.D.  He  suffered,  and  He  rose  again 2.     And  as,  when  we  hear 
ai.$.ra  of  Him  as  Lord   and  God  and  true  Light,  we  understand 
26-41.  Him  as  being  from   the  Father,  so  on   hearing,  The  Lord 
created,  and  Servant,  and  He  suffered,we  shall  justly  ascribe 
this,  not  to  the  Godhead,  for  it  is  irrelevant,  but  we  must 
interpret  it  by  that  flesh  which  He  bore  for  our  sakes ;  for  to 
it  these  things  are  proper,  and  this  flesh  was  none  other's  than 
the  Word's.  And  if  we  wish  to  know  the  object  attained  by  this, 

X  rtpji«fjS««m.  Soin^adAfros.5.init.  meaning  of  the  word,  contr.  Apoll.  ii. 

And  Sent.  D.§.  19.  *tgiie%'*rui  vipfioft-  2.   and  10;    though  it  there  approxi- 

£«<""«?.     And  Gregory  Nyssen,  contr.  mates  (even  in  phrase,  ov*  i»  J/«/ei<ri< 

Eon.  vin.  p.  234.  C.  us  &»  rov;  a<rti£ov{  ^ayu-ruv)  to  its  ecclesiastical  use,  which 

T«<f   TX«T«y/xa7f  xKM.^avtiti;  vi^o/x,-  seems  to  have  been  later.    Yet  persona 

0wim.  vid.  also  vtei't^ovrat  ut  ol  x«v  occurs  in  Tertull.  in  Prax.  27;  it  may 

'*<"    Or^-  '»•  fin-  be  questioned,  however,  whether  in  any 

•  *toff*>*«..  vid.  Orat.  i.  §.  54.  ii.  §.  8.  genuine  Greek  treatise  till  the  Apolli- 

bent.  i).  4.  not  persons,  lout  characters;  narians. 
which   must    also    be    considered    the 

By  the  Word  becoming  man,  men  become  gods.         23 

we  shall  find  it  to  be  as  follows;  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh  CHAP. 

in  order  to  offer  up  this  body  for  all,  and  that  we,  partaking - 

of  His  Spirit,  might  be  made  gods,  a  gift  which  we  could  not 
otherwise  have  gained  than  by  His  clothing  Himself  in  our 
created  body1;  for  hence  we  derive  our  name  of  "  men  ofl°ratii- 
God"  and  "  men  in  Christ."  But  as  we,  by  receiving  the 
Spirit,  do  not  lose  our  own  proper  substance,  so  the  Lord, 
when  made  man  for  us,  and  bearing  a  body,  was  no  less  God ; 
for  He  was  not  lessened  by  the  envelopment  of  the  body, 
but  rather  deified  it  and  rendered  it  immortal a. 

a  "  remaining  Himself  unalterable,     nomy  and  presence  in  the  flesh."  Orat. 
and  not  changed  by  Hi*  human  eco-     ii.  6. 



Power,  Word  or  Reason,  and  Wisdom,  the  names  of  the  Son,  imply 
eternity;  as  well  as  the  Father's  title  of  Fountain.  The  Arians  reply 
that  these  do  not  formally  belong  to  the  essence  of  the  Son,  but  are 
names  given  Him  ;  that  God  has  many  words,  powers,  &c.  Why  there 
is  but  one  Son  and  Word,  &c.  All  the  titles  of  the  Son  coincide  in  Him. 

NICEN.      1.  THIS  then  is  quite  enough  to  expose  the  infamy  of  the 

PEF-  Arian  heresy  ;  for,  as  the  Lord  has  granted,  out  of  their  own 

§•  15.  wor(]s  is  irreligion  brought  home  to  themb.     But  come  now 

and  let  us  on  our  part  act  on  the  offensive,  and  call  on  them 

for  an  answer ;    for  now  is  fair  time,  when  their  own  ground 

has  failed  them,  to  question  them  on  ours ;  perhaps  it  may 

ahash  the  perverse,  and  disclose  to  them  whence  they  have  fallen. 

We  have  learned  from  divine  Scripture,  that  the  Son  of  God, 

as  was  said  above,  is  the  very  Word  and  Wisdom  of  the 

i  Cor.  i,  Father.     For  the  Apostle  says,  Christ  the  power  of  God  and 

John  1   Me  Wisdom  of  God;  and  John  after  saying,  And  the  Word 

14.        was  made  flesh,  at  once  adds,  And  we  have  seen  His  glory, 

the  glory  as  of  the  Only-begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  graee 

and  truth;  so  that,  the  Word  being  the  Only-begotten  Son, 

in  this  Word  and  in  Wisdom  heaven  and  earth  and  all  that  is 

therein  were  made.     And  of  this  Wisdom  that  God  is  Foun- 

1  vid.      tain  we  have  learned  from1  Baruch,  by  Israel's  being  charged 

§.U12.     wfth  having  forsaken  the  Fountain  of  Wisdom.     If  then  they 

deny  Scripture,  they  are  at  once  aliens  to  their  name,  and 

b  The  main  argument  of  the  Arians  begot  the  Son,  he  that  was  begotten 

was  that  our  Lord  was  a  Son,  and  there-  had  a  beginning  of  existence  ;  and  from 

fore  was  not  eternal,  but  of  a  substance  this  it  is  plain  that  once  the  Son  was 

which   had   a  beginning.      With   this  not;  and  it  follows  of  necessity  that  He 

Arius  started  in  his  dispute  with  Alex-  had  His  subsistence  out  of  nothing." 

ander.     "Arius,    a   man   not  without  Socr.  i.  5.     Accordingly,    Athanasius 

dialectic  skill,  thinking  that  the  Bishop  says,  "  Having  argued  with  them  as  to 

was  introducing  the  doctrine  of  Sabel-  the  meaning  of  their  own  selected  term, 

lius  the  Libyan,  out  of  contention  fell  'Son,'  let  us  go  on  to  others,  which  on 

off  into  the  opinion  diametrically  oppo-  the   very  face    make   for   us,  such    as 

site, and  he  says,  '  If  the  Father  Word,  Wisdom,  &c." 

To  deny  God's  Wisdom,  is  to  deny  that  God  is  wise.     25 

may  fitly  be  called  of  all  men  atheists1,  and  Christ's  enemies,  CHAP. 
for  they  have  brought  upon  themselves  these  names.     But  if } — : — '— 
they  agree  with  us  that  the  sayings  of  Scripture  are  divinely  supr.p.3. 
inspired,  let  them  dare  to   say   openly  what  they  think  innotef- 
secret,  that  God  was  once  wordless  and  wisdomlessc;  and  let 
them  in  their  madness2  say,  "  There  was  once  when  He  was2  vid. 
not,"  and,  "  before  His  generation,  Christ  was  notd ;"    and  ,^ve> 
again  let  them  declare  that  the  Fountain  begat  not  Wisdom 
from  Itself,  but  acquired  It  from  without,  till  they  have  the 
daring  to  say,  "  The  Son  came  of  nothing ;"  whence  it  will 
follow   that  there   is   no   longer  a  Fountain,  but  a  sort   of 
pool,  as  if  receiving  water  from  without,  and  usurping  the 
name  of  Fountain  e. 

2.  How  full  of  irreligion  this  is,  I  consider  none  can  doubt  §.16. 
who  has  ever  so  little  understanding.    But  since  they  whisper 
something   about    Word   and    Wisdom,   being   only  names 
of  the  Son f,  we  must  ask  then,  If  these  are  only  names  of 

vid.  infra,  §.  26. 
This  is  a  frequent  argument  in  the  con- 
troversy, viz.  that  to  deprive  the  Father 
of  His  Son  or  substantial  Word,  (Kayos ,) 
is  as  great  a  sacrilege  as  to  deny  His 
Reason,  Xoya;,  from  which  the  Son  re- 
ceives His  name.  Thus  Orat.  i.  §.  14.  fin. 
Athan.  says,  "  imputing  to  God's  na- 
ture an  absence  of  His  Word,  (aXay/av 
or  irrationality,)  they  are  mo.«t  irre- 
ligious." vid.  §.  19.  fin.  24.  Else- 
where, he  says,  "  Is  a  man  not  mad 
himself,  who  even  entertains  the  thought 
that  God  is  word-less  and  wisdom-less  P 
for  such  illustrations  and  such  images 
Scripture  hath  proposed,  that,  consider- 
ing the  inability  of  human  nature  to 
comprehend  concerning  God,  we  might 
even  from  these,  however  poorly  and 
dimly,  discern  as  far  as  is  attainable." 
Orat.  ii.  32.  vid.  also  iii.  63.  iv.  14. 
Scrap,  ii.  2. 

d  These  were  among  the  original 
positions  of  the  Arians;  the  former  is 
mentioned  by  Socrates,  vid.  note  b.  the 
latter  is  one  of  those  specified  in  the 
Nicene  Anathema. 

e  And  so  trtjyti  fagd.  Serap.  ii.  2. 
Orat.  i.  §.  14.  fin.  also  ii.  §.  2.  where 
Athanasius  speaks  as  if  those  who  deny 
that  Almighty  God  is  Father,  cannot 
really  believe  in  Him  as  a  Creator. 
"  If  He  be  not  a  Son,  let  Him  be  called 
a  work,  and  let  God  be  called,  not 

Father,  but  Framer  only  and  Creator, 
and  not  of  a  generative  nature.  But  if 
the  divine  substance  be  not  fruitful, 
(x«£rayfl»fff,)  but  barren,  as  they  say, 
as  a  light  which  enlightens  not,  and  a 
dry  fountain,  are  they  not  ashamed  to 
maintain  that  He  possesses  the  crea- 
tive energy?"  vid.  also  snjyjj  SioT-nrot. 
Pseudo-Dion.  Div.  Nom.  c.  2.  irnyn  i» 
*vyr,s,  of  the  Son.  Epiphan.  Ancor.  19. 
And  Cyril,  "  If  thou  take  from  God  His 
being  Father,  thou  wilt  deny  the  gene- 
rative power  (*«£<ra'y«»a»)  of  the  divine 
nature,  so  that  It  no  longer  is  perfect. 
This  then  is  a  token  of  its  perfection, 
and  the  Son  who  went  forth  from 
Him  apart  from  time,  is  a  pledge 
(fftyoKytt)  to  the  Father  that  He  is  per- 
fect." Thesaur.  p.  37. 

f  Arius  said,  as  the  Eunomians  after 
him,  that  the  Son  was  not  really,  but 
only  called,  Word  and  Wisdom,  which 
were  simply  attributes  of  God,  and  the 
prototypes  of  the  Son.  vid.  Socr.  i.  6. 
p.  11.  Theod.  Hist.  1,3.  p.  731.  Athan. 
asks,  Is  the  Son  then  more  than  wis- 
dom ?  if  on  the  other  hand  He  be  less, 
still  He  must  be  so  called  because  of 
some  gift  or  quality  in  Him,  analogous 
to  wisdom,  or  of  the  nature  of  wisdom, 
and  admitting  of  improvement  and 
growth.  But  this  was  the  notorious 
doctrine  of  Christ's  -rgoxeT*  or  advance- 
ment. "  I  am  in  wonder,"  he  says, 

2(5          'Hie  Arian  objection  that  God  had  many  wordx. 

NicEN.the  Son,  He  must  be  something  else  beside  them.     And  if 
PEF>   He  is  higher  than  the  names,  it  is  not  lawful  from  the  lesser  to 
denote  the  higher ;  but  if  He  be  less  than  the  names,  yet  He 
surely  must  have  in  Him  the  principle  of  this  more  honour- 
able appellation ;    and  this  implies  His  advance,  which  is  an 
irreligion  equal  to  any  thing  that  has  gone  before.     For  He 
who  is  in  the  Father,  and  in  whom  also  the  Father  is,  who  says, 
Johnio,  /  and  the  Father  are  one,  whom  He  that  hath  seen,  hath  seen 
*frir,,y.  the  Father,  to  say  that  He  has  been  improved  *  by  any  thing 
external,  is  the  extreme  of  madness. 

3.  However,  when  they  are  beaten  hence,  and  like  the  Euse- 
bians  are  in  these  great  straits,  then  they  have  this  remaining 
plea,  which  Arius  too  in  ballads,  and  in  his  own  Thalia2, 
fabled,  as  a  new  difficulty :  "  Many  words  speaketh  God ; 
which  then  of  these  are  we  to  call  Son  and  Word,  Only- 
begotten  of  the  Father6  ?"  Insensate,  and  any  thing  but  Chris- 


*  vid. 
§.  16. 

Orat.  ii.  §.  37.  "  how,  whereas  God  is 
one,  these   men  introduce   after   their 
private  notions,  many  images,  and  wis- 
doms, and  words,  and  say  that  the  Fa- 
ther's proper  and  natural  Word  is  other 
than  the  Son,  by  whom  He  even  made 
the  Son,  and  that  the  real  Son  is  but 
notionally  called  Word,  as   vine,   and 
way,  and  door,  and  tree  of  life ;    and 
Wisdom  also  only  in  name, — the  proper 
and  true  Wisdom  of  the  Father,  which 
co-exists  with  Him  without  generation, 
being  other  than  the  Son,  by  which  He 
even  made  the  Son,  and  named  Him 
Wisdom  as  partaking  of  it."     He  goes 
on  to  observe  in  §.  38.  that  to  be  con- 
sistent they  should  explain  away  not 
only  word,  wisdom,  &c.  but  the  title  of 
being  as  applied  to  Him;    "  and  then 
what  is  He  ?  for  He  is  none  of  these 
Himself,  if  they  are  but  His  names,  and 
He  has  but  a  semblance  of  being,  and 
is  decorated  with  these  names  by  us." 
?  As  the  Arians  took  the  title  Son  in 
that  part  of  its  earthly  sense  in  which 
it  did  not  apply  to  our  Lord,  so  they 
misinterpreted    the    title    Word   also; 
which  denoted  the  Son's  immateriality 
and  indivisible  presence  in  the  Father, 
but    did  not  express    His  perfection, 
vid.  Orat.  ii.  §.  34—36.  which  precedes 
the  passage   quoted  in   the   last  note. 
"  As  our  word  is  proper  to  us  and  from 
us,  and  not  a  work  external  to  us,  so 
also  the  Word  of  God  is  proper  to  Him 

and  from  Him,  and  is  not  made,  yet  not 
as  the  tvord  of  man ,  else  one  must  con- 
sider God  as  man.     Men  have  many 
words,  and  after  those  many,  not  any 
one  of  them  all;   for  the  speaker  lias 
ceased,  and   thereupon  his  word  fails. 
But  God's  Word  is  one  and  the  same, 
and,  as  it  is  written,  "  remaineth  for 
ever,"  not  changed,  not  first  one  and 
then   another,  but   existing   the   same 
always.    For  it  behoved  that  God  being 
one,  one  should  be  His  Image,  one  His 
Word,  one  His  Wisdom."  §.  36.  vid. 
contr.  Gent.  41.  ad  Ep.  zEg.  16.  Epiph. 
Haer.  65.  3.  Nyss.  in  Eun.  xii.  p.  349. 
Origen,  (in  a  passage,  however,  of  ques- 
tionable doctrine,)  says,  "  As  there  are 
gods  many,  but  to  us  one  God  the  Father, 
and  many  lords,  but  to  us  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  so  then  are  many  words, 
but  we  pray  that  in  us  may  exist  the 
Word  that  was  in  the  beginning,  with 
God,   and   God."   in  Joan.  torn.  ii.  3. 
"  Many  things,  it  is  acknowledged,  does» 
the  Father  speak  to  the  Son,"  say  the 
Serniarians  at  Ancyra,  "but  the  words 
which  God  speaks  to  the  Son,  are  not 
sons.     They  are  not  substances  of  God, 
but  vocal  energies  ;  but  the  Son,  though 
a  Word,  is  not  such,  but,  being  a  Son, 
is   a   substance."    Epiph.  Haer.  73.  12. 
The  Serniarians  are  speaking  against 
Sabellianism,    which    took    the    same 
ground  here  as  Arianism ;    so  did  the 
heresy  of  Samosatene,  who,  according  to 

If  oar  Lord  is  the  Word,  He  is  the  Son  and  the  Image.  27 

tians h !    for  first,  on  using  such  language  about  God,  they  CHAP. 

conceive  of  Him  almost  as  a  man,  speaking  and  reversing  His  '— 

first  words  by  His  second,  just  as  if  one  Word  from  God  were 
not  sufficient  for  the  framing  of  all  things  at  the  Father's  will, 
and  for  His  providential  care  of  all.  For  His  speaking  many 
words  would  argue  a  feebleness  in  them  all,  each  needing  the 
sendee  of  the  other.  But  that  God  should  have  one  Word, 
which  is  the  true  doctrine,  both  shews  the  power  of  God,  and 
the  perfection  of  the  Word  that  is  from  Him,  and  the  religious 
understanding  of  them  who  thus  believe. 

4.  O  that  they  would  consent  to  confess  the  truth  from  this  §.17. 
their  own  statement !  for  if  they  once  grant  that  God  produces 
words,  they  plainly  know  Him  to  be  a  Father ;  and  acknowledg- 
ing this,  let  them  consider  that,  while  they  are  loth  to  ascribe 
one  Word  to  God,  they  are  imagining  that  He  is  Father  of  many ; 
and  while  they  are  loth  to  say  that  there  is  no  Word  of  God  at 
all,  yet  they  do  not  confess  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God, — which 
is  ignorance  of  the  truth,  and  inexperience  in  divine  Scripture. 
For  if  God  is  altogether  Father  of  the  Word,  wherefore  is  not  He 
a  Son  that  is  begotten  ?  And  again,  Son  of  God  who  should 
be,  but  His  Word  ?  For  there  are  not  many  Words,  or  each 
would  be  imperfect,  but  one  is  the  Word,  that  He  only  may 
be  perfect,  and  because,  God  being  one,  His  image  too  must 
be  one,  which  is  the  Son.  For  the  Son  of  God,  as  may  be 
learnt  from  the  divine  oracles  themselves,  is  Himself  the  Word 
of  God,  and  the  Wisdom,  and  the  Image,  and  the  Hand,  and 
the  Power ;  for  God's  offspring  is  one,  and  of  the  generation 
from  the  Father  these  titles  are  tokens'.  For  if  you  say  the 

Epiphanius,  considered  our  Lord,  the  '  All  the  titles  of  the  Son  of  God  are 

internal  Word,  or  thought.    Hser.  65.  consistent  with  each  other,  and  various- 

The  term  word  in  this  inferior  sense  is  ly  represent  one  and  the  same  Person, 

often  in  Greek  pvpa.  Epiph.  supr.  and  "  Son"  and  "  "Word,"  denote  Hisderiv- 

Cyril.  de  Incarn.  Unig.  init.  p.  6/9.  ation  ;    "Word"   and  "Image,"    His 

h  "If  they  understood  and  acknow-  Similitude;  "Word"  and  "Wisdom," 

ledged  the  characteristic  idea  (%U£KX-  His    immateriality ;    "  Wisdom"   and 

TjJ^a)  of  Christianity,they  would  not  have  "  Hand",  His  co-existence.     "  If  He 

said  that  the  Lord  of  glory  was  a  crea-  is  not   Son,   neither   is    He    Image." 

ture."  ad  Serap.  ii.  7.    In  Orat.  i.  §.  2.  Orat.  ii.  §.  2.     "  How  is  there  Word 

he  says,  Arians  are  not  Christians  be-  and  Wisdom,  unless  there  he  a  proper 

cause  they  are  Arians,  for  Christians  offspring  of  His  substance?    ii.  §.  22. 

are  called,  not  from   Arius,  but  from  vid.  also  Orat.  i.  §.  20,  21.  and  at  great 

Christ,  who  is  their  only  Master,  vid.  length  Orat.  iv.  §.  20.  £c.  vid.  also  Naz. 

also  de  Syn.  §.  38.  init.  Sent.  D.  fin.  Ad  Orat.  30.  n.  20.  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  i. 

Afros.  4.  Their  cruelty  and  cooperation  18.   Hilar.  de  Trin.  vii.   11.    August, 

with  the  heathen  popu'lace  was  another  in  Joann.  xlviii.  6.  and  in  Psalm  44, 

reason.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  25.  12.  (45,)  5. 

28  TJie  Names  of  the  Son 

NIC  EN.  Son,  you  have  declared  what  is  from  the  Father  by  nature ;  and 
DEF-  if  you  imagine  the  Word,  you  are  thinking  again  of  what  is 
from  Him,  and  what  is  inseparable ;  and,  speaking  of  Wisdom, 
again  you  mean  just  as  much,  what  is  not  from  without,  but 
from  Him  and  in  Him ;  and  if  you  name  the  Power  and  the 
Hand,  again  you  speak  of  what  is  proper  to  substance ; 
and,  speaking  of  the  Image,  you  signify  the  Son  ;  for  what  else 
is  like  God  but  the  offspring  from  Him  ?  Doubtless  the  things, 
which  came  to  be  through  the  Word,  these  are  founded  in 
Wisdom ;  and  what  are  laid  in  Wisdom,  these  are  all  made  by 
the  Hand,  and  came  to  be  through  the  Son.  And  we  have  proof 
of  this,  not  from  external  sources,  but  from  the  Scriptures ; 

Is.  48,  for  God  Himself  says  by  Esaias  the  Prophet ;  My  hand  also 
hath  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  My  right  hand 

Is.  61,  hath  spanned  the  heavens.  And  again,  And  I  hate  covered 
them  in  the  shadow  of  My  Hand,  that  I  may  plant  the 
heavens,  and  lay  the  foundations  of  the  earth.  And  David 
being  taught  this,  and  knowing  that  the  Lord's  Hand  was  nothing 

Ps.  104,  else  than  Wisdom,  says  in  the  Psalm,  In  wisdom  hast  Thou 
made  them  all ;  the  earth  is  full  of  Thy  riches.  Solomon 

Prov.  3,  also  received  the  same  from  God,  and  said,  The  Lord  by 
wisdom  hath  founded  the  earth;  and  John,  knowing  that 

John  1,  the  Word  was  the  Hand  and  the  Wisdom,  thus  preached,  In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God;  the  same  was  in  the  beginning 
with  God:  all  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him 
was  not  any  thing  made.  And  the  Apostle,  understanding 
that  the  Hand  and  the  Wisdom  and  the  Word  was  nothing  else 

Heb.  i,  than  the  Son,  says,  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  Fathers  by  the  Prophets, 
ha  tit  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son,  whom  He 
hath  appointed  Heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  He  made 

iCor.s}the  ages.  And  again,  There  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
through  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  through  Him.  And 
knowing  also  that  the  Word,  the  Wisdom,  the  Son  was  the 
Image  Himself  of  the  Father,  He  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the 

Col.  i,    Colossians,  Giving  thanks  to  God  and  the  Father,  which 
'  hath  made  ns  meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the 
in  light,  -who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of 
t,  and  hath  translated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  His 

imply  His  divinity. 


dear  Son;  in  whom  we  have  redemption1,  even  the  remission 
of  sins ;  who  is  the  Image  of  the  Invisible  God,  the  First- 
lorn  of  every  creature;  for  by  Him  were  all  things  created, 
that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  wM^- 
sible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities, 
or  powers;  all  things  were  created  by  Him  and  for  Him; 
and  He  is  before  all  things,  and  in  Him  all  things  consist. 
For  as  all  things  are  created  by  the  Word,  so,  because  He  is 
the  Image,  are  they  also  created  in  Himk.  vAnd  thus  anyone 
who  directs  His  thoughts  to  the  Lord,  will  avoid  stumbling 
upon  the  stone  of  offence,  but  rather  will  go  forward  to  that 
brightness  which  is  reflected  from  the  light  of  truth ;  for  this 
is  really  the  doctrine  of  truth,  though  these  contentious  men 
burst  with  spite1,  neither  religious  towards  God,  nor  abashed 
at  their  confutation. 

k  vid.  a  beautiful  passage,  contr. 
Gent.  42.  &c.  Again,  of  men,  "  He 
made  them  after  His  own  image,  im- 
parting to  them  of  the  power  of  His 
proper  Word,  that,  having  as  it  were 
certain  shadows  of  the  Word,  and  be- 
coming rational,  A»y/x«),  they  might  be 
enabled  to  continue  in  blessedness." 
Incarn.  3.  vid.  also  Orat.  ii.  78.  where 

he  speaks  of  Wisdom  as  being  infused 
into  the  world  on  its  creation,  that  it 
might  possess  "  a  type  and  semblance 
of  Its  Image." 

and  so  Scrap,  ii.  fin. 
i.  de  Syn.  34.  tiietpptiyvvtiffit 
Orat.  ii.  §.  23.  e-tra^ctrrirot- 
ffa.1  \aturovf.  Orat.  ii.  $.  64.  <rg/£fr«  revs 
tiovrxf.  Sent.  D.  16. 

CHAP.  V. 


Objection  that  the  phrases  are  not  scriptural;  we  ought  to  look  at  the  sense 
more  than  the  wording1 ;  evasion  of  the  Eusehians  as  to  the  phrase  "  of 
God"  which  is  in  Scripture;  their  evasion  of  all  explanations  hut  those 
which  the  Council  selected;  which  were  intended  to  negative  the  Arian 
formulae ;  protest  against  their  conveying  any  material  sense. 

NICEN.  1.  Now  the  Eusebians  were  at  the  former  period  examined 
PEF>  at  great  length,  and  convicted  themselves,  as  I  said  before ; 

§'  18'  on  this  they  subscribed;  and  after  this  change  of  mind  they 
kept  in  quiet  and  retirement"1;  but  since  the  present  party,  in 
the  fresh  arrogance  of  irreligion,  and  in  dizziness  about  the 
truth,  are  full  set  upon  accusing  the  Council,  let  them  tell  us 
what  are  the  sort  of  Scriptures  from  which  they  have  learned, 

1  v.  sup.  or  who  is  the  Saint l  by  which  they  have  been  taught,  that  they 
£ote2y.  nave  heaped  together  the  phrases,  "  out  of  nothing2,"  and  "  He 

2  *g  oix,  was  not  before  His  generation,"  and  "  once  He  was  not,"  and 

"  alterable,"  and  "  pre-existence,"  and  "  at  the  will ;"  which  are 
their  fables  in  mockery  of  the  Lord.  For  the  blessed  Paul  in 
Heb.ii,his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says,  By  faith  we  understand  that 
the  ages  were  framed  by  the  Word  of  God,  so  that  things 
which  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear. 
But  iiothuag  is  common  to  the  Word  with  the  ages";  for  He  it 

m  After  the  Nicene  Council,  the  a  sort  of  positive  existence,  though  not 

Eusebians  did  not  dare  avow  their  an  elfiet  or  substance,  and  means  the 

heresy  in  Constantine's  lifetime,  but  same  as  "  world,"  or  an  existing  system 

merely  attempted  the  banishment  of  of  things  viewed  apart  from  time  and 

Athanasius,  and  the  restoration  of  motion,  vid.  Theodor.  in  Hebr.  i.  2. 

Arius.  Their  first  Council  was  A.D.  Our  Lord  then  is  the  Maker  of  the  ages 

341,  four  years  after  Constantine's  thus  considered,  as  the  Apostle  also  tells 

death.  us,  Hebr.  11,3.  and  God  is  the  King  of 

n  By  a"a>,  age,  seems  to  be  meant  the  ages,  1  Tim.  1,1 7.  or  is  before  all  ages, 
duracion,  or  the  measure  of  duration,  be-  as  being  eternal,  or  ^oaiuviot .  How- 
fore  or  independent  of  the  existence  of  ever,  sometimes  the  word  is  synonymous 
motion,  which  is  the  measure  of  time,  with  eternity;  "  as  time  is  to  things 
As  motion,  and  therefore  time,  are  which  are  under  time,  so  ages  to  things 
creatures,  so  are  the  ages.  Considered  which  are  everlasting."  Damasc.  Fid. 
as  the  measure  of  duration,  an  age  has  Orth.  ii.  1.  and  "  ages  of  ages"  stands 

77/6?  Son  before  all  ayes,  because  their  Creator.         31 

is  who  is  in  existence  before  the  ages,  by  whom  also  the  ages  CHAP. 
came  to  be.     And  in  the  Shepherd1,  it  is  written,  (since  they  — — — 
allege  this  book  also,  though  it  is  not  of  the  Canon0,)  "  First  H.i.vid! 
of  all  believe,  that  God  is  one,  who  created  all  things,  and adAfr-5- 
arranged  them,  and  brought  all  things   from   nothing   into 
being ;"   but  this  again  does  not   relate  to   the    Son,  for  it 
speaks  concerning  all  things  which  came  to  be  through  Him, 
from  whom  He  is  distinct ;  for  it  is  not  possible  to  reckon 
the  Framer  of  all  with  the  things  made  by  Him,  unless  a  man 
is  so  beside  himself  as  to  say  that  the  architect  also  is  the 
same  as  the  buildings  which  he  rears. 

2.  Why  then,  when  they  have  invented  on  their  part  unscrip- 
tural  phrases,  for  the  purposes  of  irreligion,  do  they  accuse 
those  who  are  religious  in  their  use  of  them??  For  irre- 
ligiousness  is  utterly  forbidden,  though  it  be  attempted  to 

for  eternity;  and  then  the  "ages"  or 
measures  of  duration,  may  be  supposed 
to  stand  for  the  Tbixi  or  ideas  in  the 
Divine  Mind,  which  seems  to  have 
been  a  Platonic  or  Gnostic  notion. 
Hence  Synesiu?,  Hymn  iii.  addresses 
the  Almighty  as  uitovoroxs,  parent  of  the 
ages.  Hence  sometimes  God  Himself 
is  called  the  Age,  Clem.  Alex  Hymn. 
Paed.  iii.  fin.  or,  the  Age  of  ages, 
Pseudo-Dion,  de  Div.  Nom.  5.  p.  580.  or 
again,  aiuvios.  Theodoret  sums  up  what 
has  been  said  thus :  "  Age  is  not  any 
subsisting  substance,  but  is  an  interval 
indicative  of  time,  now  infinite,  when 
God  is  spoken  of,  now  commensurate 
with  creation,  now  with  human  life." 
Hser.  v.  6.  If  then,  as  Athan.  says  in 
the  text,  the  Word  is  Maker  of  the 
ages,  He  is  independent  of  duration  al- 
together; He  does  not  come  to  be  in 
time,  but  is  above  and  beyond  it,  or 
eternal.  Elsewhere  he  says,  "  The 
words  addressed  to  the  Son  in  the  144th 
Psalm,  '  Thy  kingdom  is  a  kingdom  of 
all  ages,'  forbid  any  one  to  imagine 
any  interval  at  all  in  which  the  Word 
did  not  exist.  For  if  every  interval  is 
measured  by  ages,  and  of  all  the  ages 
the  Word  is  King  and  Maker,  there- 
fore, whereas  no  interval  at  all  exists 
prior  to  Him,  it  were  madness  to  say, 
'  There  was  once  when  the  Everlasting 
(«/«««")  was  not.' "  Orat.  i.  12.  And 
so  Alexander;  "  Is  it  not  unreasonable 
that  He  who  made  times,  and  ages,  and 
seasons,  to  all  of  which  belongs i  w  as  not,' 

should  be  said  not  to  be  ?  for,  if  so,  that 
interval  in  which  they  say  the  Son  was 
not  yet  begotten  by  the  Father,  pre- 
cedes that  Wisdom  of  God  which  framed 
all  things.'  "  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  736. 
vid.  also  Basil,  de  Sp.  S.  n.  14.  Hilar. 
de  Trin.  xii.  34. 

0  And  so  in  Ep.  Fest.  fin.  he  enu- 
merates it  with  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus, 
Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  and  others,  "not 
canonized  but  appointed  by  the  Fathers 
to  be  read  by  late  converts  and  persons 
under  teaching."  He  calls  it  elsewhere 
a  most  profitable  book.  Incarn.  3. 

P  Athan.  here  retorts  the  charge 
brought  against  the  Council,  as  it  was 
obvious  to  do,  which  gave  occasion  for 
this  Treatise.  If  the  Council  went  be- 
yond Scripture  in  the  use  of  the  word 
"  substance,"  (which  however  can  hard- 
ly be  granted,)  who  made  this  necessary, 
but  they  who  had  already  introduced 
the  phrases,  "  the  Son  was  out  of  no- 
thing," &c.  &c.?  "  Of  the  substance," 
and  "one  in  substance,"  were  directly 
intended  to  contradict  and  supplant  the 
Arian  unscriptural  innovations,  as  he 
says  below,  $.  20.  fin.21.init.  vid.  also  ad 
Afros.  6.  de  Synod.  §.  36, 37.  He  observes 
in  like  manner  that  the  Arian  ayi»»jr«f, 
though  allowable  as  used  by  religious 
men,  de  Syn.  $.46.  was  unscriptural, 
Orat.  i.  §.  30,  34.  Also  Epiph.  Hser. 
76.  p.  941.  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  i.  5. 
Hilar.  contr.  Const.  16.  Ambros.  In- 
carn. 80. 

32     History  of  the  Nicene  symbol,  "  Of  the  Substance." 

NTCEN.  disguise  it  with  artful  expressions  and  plausible  sophisms ; 
PEF'  but  religiousness  is  confessed  by  all  to  be  lawful,  even  though 

ivid.     presented  in  strange  phrases1,  provided  only  they  are  used 

not/in  w^tn  a  religious  view,  and  a  wish  to  make  them  the  expression 
of  religious  thoughts.  Now  the  aforesaid  grovelling  phrases 
of  Christ's  enemies,  have  been  shewn  in  these  remarks  to  be 
both  formerly  and  now  replete  with  irreligion ;  whereas  the 
definition  of  the  Council  against  them,  if  accurately  examined, 
will  be  found  to  be  altogether  a  representation  of  the  truth, 
and  especially  if  diligent  attention  be  paid  to  the  occasion 
which  gave  rise  to  these  expressions,  which  was  reasonable, 
and  was  as  follows  : — 
§.  19.  3.  The  Council2  wishing  to  negative  the  irreligious  phrases 

AfrV*3  °^  ^e  ^rians?  and  to  use  instead  the  acknowledged  words  of 
the  Scriptures,  that  the  Son  is  not  from  nothing  but  from 
God,  and  is  Word  and  Wisdom,  nor  creature  or  work,  but 
the  proper  offspring  from  the  Father,  the  party  of  Eusebius, 
out  of  their  inveterate  heterodoxy,  understood  the  phrase  from 
God  as  belonging  to  us,  as  if  in  respect  to  it  the  Word  of  God 

1  Cor.  8,  differed  nothing  from  us,  and  that  because  it  is  written,  There 

2  Cor. 5  **  one  God,  from  whom  all  things;  and  again,  Old  things  are 

passed  away,  behold,  all  things  are  new,  and  all  things  are 
from  God.  But  the  Fathers,  perceiving  their  craft  and  the 
cunning  of  their  irreligion,  were  forced  to  express  more  dis- 
tinctly the  sense  of  the  words  from  God.  Accordingly,  they 
wrote  "  from  the  substance  of  Godq,"  in  order  that/rom  God 

1  Hence    it  stands    in    the   Creed,  and    illuminating    all    things    visible 

"  from  the  Father,  that  is,  from  the  and    invisible,    gathers    them    within 

substance  of  the  Father."   vid.  Euse-  Himself  and  knits  them  in  one,  leav- 

bius's  Letter,  infra.     According  to  the  ing  nothing  destitute  of  His  power,  but 

received  doctrine  of  the  Church  all  ra-  quickening  and  preserving   all  things 

tional  beings,  and  in  one  sense  all  beings  and  through  all,  and  each  by  itself,  and 

whatever,  are  "from  God,"  over  and  the  whole  altogether."  contr.  Gent.  42. 

above  the  fact  of  their  creation  ;  and  of  Again,  "  God  not  only  made  us  of  no- 

this  truth  the  Eusebians  made  use  to  thing,  but  also  vouchsafed  to  us  a  life 

deny  our  Lord's  proper  divinity.  Athan.  according  to  God,  and  by  the  grace  of 

lays  down  elsewhere  that  nothing  re-  the    Word.      But  men,   turning    from 

mains  in  consistence  and  life,  except  things  eternal  to  the  things  of  corrup- 

from  a  participation  of  the  "Word,  which  tion  at  the  devil's  counsel,  have  brought 

is  to  be  considered  a  gift  from  Him,  on  themselves  the  corruption  of  death, 

additional  to  that  of  creation,  and  se-  who  were,  as  I  said,  by  nature  corrupted, 

parable  in  idea  from  it.     vid.  above,  but  by  the  grace  of  the  participation 

note  k.     Thus  he   says  that  the   all-  of  the"  Word,  had  escaped  their  natural 

powerful  and  all-perfect,  Holy  Word  state,  had  they  remained  good."  Incarn. 

of  the   Father,  pervading  all   things,  5.     Man    thus    considered  is,    in  his 

and  developing  every  where  His  power,  first  estate  a  son  of  God  and  born  of 

Xecessity  of  it,  to  explain  "  of  God"  33 

might  not  be  considered  common  and  equal  in  the  Son  and  CHAP. 
in  things  generate,  but  that  all  others  might  be  acknowledged  — 
as  creatures,  and  the  Word  alone  as  from  the  Father.     For 
though  all  things  be  said  to  be  from  God,  yet  this  is  not  in 
the  sense  in  which  the  Son  is  from  Him ;  for  as  to  the  crea- 
tures, "of  God"  is  said  of  them  on  this  account,  in  that  they  exist 
not  at  random  or  spontaneously,  nor  come  to  be  by  chance  *, !  vid.  de 
according  to  those  philosophers  who  refer  them  to  the  com-  ^35. 
bination  of  atoms,  and  to  elements  of  similar  structure, — nor  as 
certain  heretics  speak  of  a  distinct  Framer, — nor  as  others  again 
say  that  the  constitution  of  all  things  is  from  certain  Angels ; — 
but  in  that,  whereas  God  is,  it  was  by  Him  that  all  tilings  were 
brought  into  being,  not  being  before,  through  His  Word,  but 
as  to  the  Word,  since  He  is  not  a  creature,  He  alone  is  both 
called  and  isfrom  the  Father;  and  it  is  significant  of  this  sense 
to  say  that  the  Son  is  "  from  the  substance  of  the  Father,"  for  to 
no  creature  does  this  attach.     In  truth,  when  Paul  says  that 
all  things  are  from  God,  he  immediately  adds,  and  one  LordiCor.8, 
Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  all  things,  by  way  of  shewing 
all  men,  that  the  Son  is  other  than  all  these  things  which 
came  to  be  from  God,  (for  the  things  which  came  to  be  from 
God,  came  to  be  through  His  Son ;)  and  that  he  had  used  his 
foregoing  words  with  reference  to  the  world  as  framed  by  God1, 

God,  or,  to  use  the  term  which,  occurs  the  Father,  this  is  done  only  to  the 

so  frequently  in  the  Arian  controversy,  exclusion  of  creatures,  or  of  false  gods, 

in  the  number,  not  only  of  the  creatures,  not  to  the  exclusion  of  His  Son  who  is 

but  of  things  generate,  yivnrei.     This  implied  in  the   mention    of    Himself, 

was  the  sense  in  which  the  Arians  said  Thus  when  God  is  called  only  wise,  or 

that  our  Lord  was  Son  of  God  ;  where-  the  Father  the  only  God,  or  God  is  said 

as,  as  Athan.  says,  u  things  generate,  to  be  ingenerate,  aysvuros,  this  is  not  in 

being  works,  cannot  be  called  generate,  contrast  to  the  Son,  but  to  all  things 

except  so  far  as,  after  their  making,  which    are    distinct    from    God.     vid. 

they  partake  of  the'  begotten  Son,  and  Athan.  Orat.  iii.  8.  Naz.  Orat.  30,  13. 

are  therefore  said  to  have  been  gene-  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  142.     "  The  words 

rated  also ;  not  at  all  in  their  own  na-  '  one'  and  '  only'  ascribed  to  God  in 

ture,  but  because  of  their  participation  Scripture,"  says  S.  Basil,  "  are  not  used 

of  the  Son  in  the  Spirit."   Orat.  i.  56.  in  contrast  to  the  Son  or  the  Holy  Spirit, 

The  question  then  was,  as  to  the  dis-  but  with  reference  to  those  who  are  not 

Unction  of  the  Son's  divine  generation  God,  and  falsely  called  so."  Ep.  8.  n.  3. 

over  that  of  holy  men  ;  and  the  Catho-  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  Father  is 

lies  answered  that  He  was  t£  ovffictf,  mentioned,  the   other  Divine  Persons 

from  the  substance  of  God  ;  not  by  par-  are  implied  in  Him,  "  The  Blessed  and 

ticipation  of  grace,  not  by  resemblance,  Holy  Trinity,"  says  S.  Athan.  "  is  indi- 

not  in  a  limited  sense,  but  really  and  visible  and  one  in  itself;  and  when  the 

simply,  and  therefore  by  an  internal  Father  is  mentioned,  His  Word  is  add- 

divine  act.  vid.  below,  §.  22.  and  infr.  ed,  and  the  Spirit  in  the  Son ;  and  if 

§.  31.  note  k.  the  Son  is  named,  in  the  Son  is  the  Fa- 

r  "When  characteristic  attributes  and  ther,  and  the  Spirit  is  not  external  to 

prerogatives  are  ascribed  to  God,  or  to  the  Word."  ad  Serap.  i.  14. 

34      History  of  the  Nicene  Synod  "  One  in  substance" 

NICEN.  and  not  as  if  all  things  were  from  the  Father  as  the  Son  is. 
PEF-   For  neither  are  other  things  as  the  Son,  nor  is  the  Word  one 
among  others,  for  He  is  Lord  and  Framer  of  all ;  and  on  this 
account  did  the  Holy  Council  declare  expressly  that  He  was 
of  the  substance9  of  the  Father,  that  we  might  believe  the 
Word  to  be  other  than  the  nature  of  things  generate,  being 
alone  truly  from  God ;  and  that  no  subterfuge  should  be  left 
open  to  the  irreligious.     This  then  was  the  reason  why  the 
Council  wrote  "  of  the  substance." 
§.  20.      4.  Again,  when  the  Bishops  said  that  the  Word  must  be 
described  as  the  True  Power  and  Image  of  the  Father,  like 
to  the  Father  in  all  things  and  unvarying1,  and  as  unalterable 
an(j  as  always,  and  as  in  Him  without  division ;  (for  never 
was  the  Word  not,  but  He  was  always,  existing  everlastingly 
with  the  Father,  as  the  radiance  of  light,)  the  party  of  Euse 
bius  endured  indeed,  as  not  daring  to  contradict,  being  pu 
to  shame  by  the  arguments  which  were  urged  against  them 
but  withal  they  were  caught  whispering  to  each  other  anc 
winking  with   their   eyes,  that  "  like,"   and  "  always,"   and  • 
"  power,"  and  "  in  Him,"  were,  as  before,  common  to  us  and 
the  Son,  and  that  it  was  no  difficulty  to  agree  to  these.     As 
i  Cor.    to  "  like,"  they  said  that  it  is  written  of  us,  Man  is  the  image 
^Cor  4  an^  9^ory  °f  G°d  >    "  always,"  that  it  was  written,  For  we 
ii-     ^  which  live  are  alway ;    "in  Him,"   In  Him  we  live   and 
2si       '  move  and  have  our  being ;  "  unalterable,"  that  it  is  written, 
"Rom.  8.  Nothing  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ;    as  to 
's/iail      "  power,"   that  the    caterpillar   and   the   locust    are    called 
separate  power,  and  great  power,  and  that  it  is  often  said  of  the 
25.   4i  people,  for  instance,  All  the  power  of  the  Lord  came  out  of 
Ex- 12>  the  land  of  Egypt ;    and  others   are  heavenly  powers,  for 
Ps .46,8.  Scripture    says,  The  Lord  of  powers   is   with  us,  the  God 

*  Vid.  also  ad  Afros.  4.  Again,  " '  I  in  His  self-existing  nature,  (vid.  Tert. 

am,'  ro  ov,  is  really  proper  to  God  and  in  Hermog.  3.)  nay,  it  expressly  meant 

is  a  whole,  bounded  or  mutilated  neither  to  negative  the  contrary  notion  of  the 

by  aught  before  Him,  nor  after  Him,  Arians,  that  our  Lonl  was  from  some- 

for  He  neither  was,  nor  shall  be."  Naz.  thing  distinct  from  God,  and  in  conse- 

Orat.  30.  18  fin.   Also  Cyril  Dial.  i.  quence  of  created  substance.   Moreover' 

p.  392.  Damasc.  Fid.  Orth.  i.  9.  and  the   term   expresses   the  idea  of  God' 

the  Semiarians  at  Ancyra,  Epiph.  Hser.  positively,  in  contradistinction  to  nega- 

73.  12  init.     By  the  "  essence,"  how-  tive  epithets,  such  as  infinite,  immense, 

ever,  or  "  substance"  of  God,  the  Council  eternal,  &c.  Damasc.  Fid.  Orthod.  i.  4. 

did  notmean  any  thing  distinctfrom  God,  and  as  little  implies  any  thing  distinct 

vid.  note  a,  infr.  but  God  Himself  viewed  from  God  as  those  epithets  do. 

Necessity  of  it  to  explain  "  Image  of  God"  35 

of  Jacob  is  our  refuge.     Indeed  Asterius,  by  title  the  sophist,  CHAP. 

had  said  the  like  in  writing,  having  taken  it  from  them,  and — 

before  Him  Arius1  having  taken  it  also,  as  has  been  said.    But '  vid- 
the   Bishops,  discerning  in    this  too    their   simulation,  and  13.^2. 
whereas  it  is  written,  Deceit  is  in  the  heart  of  the  irreligious  Prov. 
that  imagine  evil,  were   again  compelled  on  their   part  to  2'  2 
concentrate  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  re-say  and 
re-write   what  they   had   said   before,   more   distinctly  still, 
namely,  that  the  Son  is  "  one  in  substance1"  with  the  Father; 
by  way  of  signifying  that  the  Son  was  from  the  Father,  and 
not  merely  like,  but  is  the  same  in  likeness  °,  and  of  shewing 
that  the  Son's  likeness  and  unalterableness  was  different  from 
such  copy  of  the  same  as  is  ascribed  to  us,  which  we  acquire 
from  virtue  on  the  ground  of  observance  of  the  command- 

5.  For  bodies  which  are  like  each  other,  may  be  separated  and 
Ibecome  at  distances  from  each  other,  as  are  human  sons  rela-          / 
lively  to  their  parents,  (as  it  is  written  concerning  Adam  and 
Seth,  who  was  begotten  of  him,  that  he  was  like  him  after  his  Gen.  5, 
own  pattern  ;)A>ut  since  the  generation  of  the  Son  from  the 

1  vid.  ad  Afros.  5.  6.  ad  Scrap,  ii.  6. 
S.  Ambrose  tells  us,  that  a  Letter 
written  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  in 
which  he  said,  "If  we  call  Him  true 
Son  of  the  Father  and  uncreate,  then 
are  we  granting  that  He  is  one  in  sub- 
stance, opoouffiov^  determined  the  Coun- 
cil on  the  adoption  of  the  term,  de  Fid. 
iii.n.  125.  He  had  disclaimed  "of  the  sub- 
stance,"in  his  Letter  to  Paulinus.Theod. 
Hist.  i.  4.  Arius,  however,  had  dis- 
claimed optovfftot  already.  Epiph.  Hser. 
69.  7.  It  was  a  word  of  old  usage  in 
the  Church,  as  Eusebius  of  Csesarea con- 
fesses in  his  Letter,  infr.  Tertullian  in 
Prax.  13.  fin.  has  the  translation  "  unius 
substantive,"  (vid.  Lucifer  de  non  Pare, 
p.  21 8.)  as  he  has  "  de  substantia  Patris," 
.n  Prax.  4.  and  Origen  perhaps  used  the 
tford,  vid,  Pamph.  Apol.  5.  and  Theo- 
*nostus  and  the  two  Dionysius's,  infra, 
j.25. 26.  And  before  them  Clement  had 
spoken  of  the  tvaffit  ?%;  /^ova^ixtjs  olfflug^ 
:i  the  union  of  the  single  substance," 
vid.  Le  Quien  in  Damasc.  Fid.  Orth. 
.  8.  Novatian  too  has  "  per  substan- 
:iae  comraunionem,"  de  Trinit.  31. 

u  The  Eusebians  allowed  that  our 
Lord  was  like  and  the  image  of  the  Fa- 

ther, but  in  the  sense  in  which  a  picture 
is  like  the  original,  differing  from  it  in 
substance  and  in  fact.  In  this  sense 
they  even  allowed  the  strong  word 
ufugK^XetxTos  unvarying  image,  vid.  be- 
ginning of  §.  20.  which  had  been  used 
by  the  Catholics,  (vid.  Alexander,  ap. 
Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  740.)  as  by  the 
Semiarians  afterwards,  who  even  added 
ihe  words  KKT  oixrixv,  or  "  according  to 
substance."  Even  this  strong  phrase, 
however,  xct<r  etxrixv  «<T#£aAAa*T«j  ti- 
xuvt  or  u'ra^xXXuKrus  optnn,  did  not  ap- 
pear to  the  Council  an  adequate  safe- 
guard of  the  doctrine.  Athan.  notices 
de  Syn.  that  "  like"  applies  to  qualities 
rather  than  to  substance,  §.  53.  Also 
Basil.  Ep.  8.  n.3.  "  while  in  itself,"  says 
the  same  Father,  "  it  is  frequently  us  >d 
of  faint  similitudes,  and  falling  very  far 
short  of  the  original."  Ep.  9.  n.  3.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Council  determined  on  the 
worii  nfAooutriov  as  implying,  as  the  text 
expresses  it,  "  the  same  in  likeness," 
TKUTOV  TVI  ofAoiuffti)  that  the  likeness 
might  not  be  analogical,  vid.  the  pas- 
sage about  gold  and  brass,  p.  40.  below. 
Cyril,  in  Joan.  1.  v.  p.  302. 

D  2 

36  Thoxe,  who  do  not  reject  Ike  CoitnciVs  sense,  will  not  its  words. 

NICEN.  Father  is  not  according  to  the  nature  of  men,  and  not  only 

—  like,  but  also  inseparable  from  the  substance  of  the  Father, 

and  He  and  the  Father  are  one,  as  He  has  said  Himself,  and 

the  Word  is  ever  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  the  Word, 

as  the  radiance  stands  towards  the  light,  (for  this  the  phrase 

itself    indicates,)    therefore   the    Council,    as    understanding 

this,  suitably  wrote  "  one  in  substance,"  that  they  might  both 

defeat  the  perverseness  of  the  heretics,  and   shew  that  the 

Word   was   other   than   generated   things.     For,   after  thus 

writing,  they  at  once  added,  "  But  they  who  say  that  the 

Son  of  God  is  from  nothing,  or  created,  or  alterable,  or  a 

work,  or   from   other  .substance,   these   the   Holy  Catholic 

1  via.     Church  anathematizes  O]     And  in  saying  this,  they  shewed 

Letter, *  clearly  that  "  of  the  substance,"  and  "  one  in  substance,"  do 

infn      negative 2  those  syllables  of  irreligion,  such  as   "  created," 

3 Knot.' and  "work,"  and  "generated,"  and  "alterable,"  and  "He 

P-          was  not  before  His  generation."     And  he  who  holds  these, 

contradicts  the  Council;    but  he  who   does   not  hold  with 

Anus,  must  needs  hold  and  comprehend  the  decisions  of  the 

Council,  suitably  regarding  them  to  signify  the  relation  of  the 

radiance  to  the  light,  and  from  thence  gaining  the  illustration 

of  the  truth. 

§.  21.       6.  Therefore  if  they,  as  the  others,  make  an  excuse  that  the 
terms  are  strange,  let  them  consider  the  sense  in  which  the 
Council  so  wrote,  and  anathematize  what  the  Council  ana- 
thematized ;  and  then,  if  they  can,  let  them  find  fault  with 
the   expressions.     But  I  well   know  that,  if  they  hold  the 
sense  of  the  Council,  they  will  fully  accept  the  terms  in  which 
i7Vinote  '1{  is  conveyed  ;  whereas  if  it  be  the  sense3  which  they  wish  to 
m.         complain  of,  all  must  see  that  it  is  idle  in  them  to  discuss  the 
wording,  when  they  are  but  seeking  handles  for  irreligion. 

7.  This  then  was  the  reason  of  these  expressions;  but  if 
they  still  complain  that  such  are  not  scriptural,  that  very  com- 
plaint is  a  reason  why  they  should  be  cast  out,  as  talking  idly 
and  disordered  in  mind ;  and  next  why  they  should  blame 
themselves  in  this  matter,  for  they  set  the  example,  beginning 
their  war  against  God  with  words  not  in  Scripture.  However, 
if  a  person  is  interested  in  the  question,  let  him  know,  that,  even 
if  the  expressions  are  not  in  so  many  words  in  the  Scriptures, 
yet,  as  was  said  before,  they  contain  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures, 

Its  sense  in  Script  tire,  if  /tot  its  words.  37 

and   expressing  it,  they  convey  it  to  those  who  have  their  CHAP. 

hearing  unimpaired  for  religious  doctrine.     Now  this  circum- : — 

stance  it  is  for  thee  to  consider,  and  for  those  illinstructed  men 
to  learn.     It  has  been  shewn  above,  and  must  be  believed  as 
true,  that  the  Word  is  from  the  Father,  and  the  only  Offspringx 
proper  to  Him  and  natural.     For  whence  may  one  conceive 
the  Son  to  be,  who  is  the  Wisdom  and  the  Word,  in  whom  all 
things  came  to  be,  but  from  God  Himself?    However,  the 
Scriptures  also  teach  us  this,  since  the  Father  says  by  David, 
My  heart  was  bursting  of  a  good  Word,  and,  From  the  wombpsA5,i. 
before  the  morning  star  I  begat  TJiee;  and  the  Son  signifies  3. ' 
to   the  Jews  about  Himself,  If  God  were  youi  Father,  ye  John  8, 
would   Love  Me;  for  I  proceeded  forth  from  the  Father.  2' 
And  again;    Not  that  any  one  has  seen  the  Father,  save  He  Johns, 
which  is  from  God,  He  hath  seen  the  Father.     And  more- 
over, 1  and  My  Father  are  one,  and,  /  in  the  Father  aitrf  JohnlO, 
the  Father  in  Me,  is  equivalent  with  saying,  "  I  am  from  the  J0hni4, 
Father,  and  inseparable  from  Him."     And  John,  in  saying, 10- 
TJie  Only-begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  John.  1, 
He  hath  declared  Him,  spoke  of  what  he  had  learned  from 
the  Saviour.     Besides,  what  else  does  in  the  bosom  intimate, 
but  the  Son's  genuine  generation  from  the  Father  ? 

8.  If  then  any  man  conceives  as  if  God  were  compound,  so  §.  22. 
as   to   have   accidents   in  His   substancey,  or  any  external 

x  <ymfl,a«,  offspring;  this  word  is  of  vineyard,"  and  "  Who   art  thou,  my 

very  frequent  occurrence  in  Athan.  He  son  ?"  moreover  that  fruits  of  the  earth 

speaks  of  it,  Orat.  iv.  3.  as  virtually  are  called  offspring,  ("I  will  not  drink  of 

Scriptural.     "  If  any  one  declines  to  the  offspring  of  this  vine,")  rarely  ani- 

say  '  offspring,'  and  only  says  that  the  mated  things,  except  indeed   in  such 

Word  exists  with  God,let  such  a  one  fear  instances  as,  "  O  generation  (offspring) 

lest,  declining  an  expression  of  Scripture  of  vipers. "    Nyssen  defends  his  brother, 

(<ro   xtyoutw)   he    fall    into   extrava-  contr.  Eunom.  Orat.  iii.  p.  105.  In  the 

gance,  &c."    Yet  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  Arian  formula  "  an  offspring,  but  not 

ii.  6—8.  explicitly  disavows  the  word,  as  one  of  the  offsprings,"  it  is  synony- 

as  an  unscriptural  invention  of  Euno-  mous    with   "  work"    or   "  creature." 

mius.     u  That  the  Father  begat  we  are  On   the   other   hand   Epiphanius   uses 

taught  in  many  places:  that  the  Son  is  it,  e.  g.  Hser.  76.  n.  8.  and  Naz.  Orat. 

an  offspring  we  never  heard  up  to  this  29.  n.  2.  Eusebius,  Demonstr.  Ev.  iv. 

day,  for  Scri  iture  says, '  unto  us  &  child  2.  Pseudo-Basil,  adv.  Eunom.  iv.  p.  230. 

is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given.'  "  c.  7.  fin. 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  "  it  is  fearful  to         /  ffvufitfaiio;.  And  so  elsewhere,  when 

give  Him  names  of  our  own,  to  whom  resistingthe  Arian  and  Sabellian  notion 

God  has  given  a  name  which  is  above  that  the  wisdom  of  God  is  only  a  quality  in 

every  name;"  and  observes  that  offspring  the  Divine  nature,  "In  that  case  God  will 

is  not  the  word  which  even  a  human  father  be  compounded  of  substance  and  quality ; 

would  apply  to  his  son,  as  for  instance  for  every  quality  is  in  the  substance. 

we  read,  "  Child,  (rijeva*,)  go  into  the  And  at  this  rate,  whereas  the  Divine 

38        TV  speak  of  God's  substance  is  to  speak  of  God. 

NICEN.  envelopement*,  and  to  be  encompassed,  or  as  if  there  is  aught 
—  about  Him  which  completes  the  substance,  so  that  when  we 
say  "  God,"  or  name  "  Father,"  we  do  not  signify  the  invisible 
and  incomprehensible  substance,  but  something  about  it, 
then  let  them  complain  of  the  Council's  stating  that  the  Son 
was  from  the  substance  of  God  ;  but  let  them  reflect,  that  in 
thus  considering  they  commit  two  blasphemies;  for  they 
make  God  material,  and  they  falsely  say  that  the  Lord  is  not 

\vt£a.u-  Son  of  the  very  Father,  but  of  what  is  about  Him1.  But  if 
God  be  simple,  as  He  is,  it  follows  that  in  saying  "  God" 
and  naming  "  Father,"  we  name  nothing  as  if  about 
Him,  but  signify  His  substance  itself.  For  though  to 
comprehend  what  the  substance  of  God  is  be  impossible, 
yet  if  we  only  understand  that  God  is,  and  if  Scripture 
indicates  Him  by  means  of  these  titles,  we,  with  the  intention 
of  indicating  Him  and  none  else,  call  Him  God  and  Father 

Ex.  3,  and  Lord.  When  then  He  says,  /  am  that  I  am,  and  I  am 
the  Lord  God,  or  when  Scripture  says,  God,  we  understand 
nothing  else  by  it  but  the  intimation  of  His  incomprehensible 
substance  Itself,  and  that  He  Is,  who  is  spoken  of*.  Therefore 

Unity  Oovas)  is  indivisible,  it  will  be  that  "  not  every  thing  which  is  said  to 

considered  compound,  being  separated  be  in  God  is  said  according  to  substance." 

into  substance  and  accident."  Orat.  de  Trin.v.  6.  And  hence,  while  Athan.  in 

iv.  2.  vid.  also  Orat.  i.  36.  This  is  the  text  denies  that  there  are  qualities 

the  common  doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  or  the  like  belonging  to  Him,  «reg<  Ktirbr, 

Athenagoras,  however,  speaks  of  God's  it  is  still  common  in  the  Fathers  to 

goodness  as  an  accident,  "  as  colour  to  speak  of  qualities,  as  in  the  passage  of 

the  body,"  "  as  flame  is  ruddy  and  the  S.  Gregory  just  cited,  in  which  the 

sky  blue,"  Legat.  24.  This,  however,  is  words  vi£  hoi  occur.  There  is  no  dif- 

but  a  verbal  difference,  for  shortly  before  ficulty  in  reconciling  these  statements, 

he  speaks  of  His  being,  <ro  ovras  ov,  and  though  it  would  require  more  words 

His  unity  of  nature,  <ro  povoipuis ,  as  in  the  than  could  be  given  to  it  here.  Petavius 

number  of  Ivirvftfitfaxirm  awrf .  Eu-  has  treated  the  subject  fully  in  his  work 

sebius  uses  the  word  ffupfafaxos  in  the  de  Deo  i.  7—11.  and  especially  ii.  3. 

same  way,  Demonstr.  Evang.  iv.  3.  When  the  Fathers  say  that  there  is  no 

And  hence  St.  Cyril,  in  controversy  difference  between  the  divine  '  propri- 

with  the  Arians,  is  led  by  the  course  of  etates'  and  essence,  they  speak  of  the 

their  objections  to  observe,  "  There  are  fact,  considering  the  Almighty  as  He 

cogent  reasons  for  considering  these  is  ;  when  they  affirm  a  difference,  they 

things  as  accidents  ffvpfafaxora  in  God,  speak  of  Him  as  contemplated  by  us, 

though  they  be  not."  Thesaur.  p.  263.  who  are  unable  to  grasp  the  idea  of  Him 

vid.  the  following  note.  as  one  and  simple,  but  view  His  Divine 

2_  ri{*0«X«,  and  so  de  Synod.  §.  34.  Nature  us  if  in  projection,  (if  such  a  word 

which  is  very  much  the  same  passage,  may  be  used,)  and  thus  divided  into 

some  Fathers,  however,  seem  to  say  the  substance  and  quality  as  man  may  be 

reverse.  E.  g.  Nazianzen  says  that  divided  into  genus  and  difference. 

neither  the  immateriality  of  God  nor  a  In  like  manner  de  Synod.  §.  34. 

ingenerateness,  present  to  us  His  sub-  Also  Basil,  "  The  substance  is  not  any 

stance.  Orat.  28. 9.  And  St.  Augustine,  one  of  things  which  do  not  attach,  but  is 

arguing  on  the  word  ingenitus,  says,  the  very  being  of  God."  contr.  Eunom. 

"  Of  the  substance"  only  brings  out  the  meaning  of  "  Son^  39 

let  no  one  be  startled  on  hearing  that  the  Son  of  God  is  from  CHAP. 
the   substance   of  the   Father ;    rather  let   him  accept  the  — — 

explanation  of  the  Fathers,  who  in  more  explicit  but  equiva- 
lent language  have  for  from  God  written  "  of  the  sub- 
stance." For  they  considered  it  the  same  thing  to  say  that 
the  Word  was  of  God  and  "  of  the  substance  of  God,"  since 
the  word  "  God,"  as  I  have  already  said,  signifies  nothing 
but  the  substance  of  Him  Who  Is.  If  then  the  Word  is  not 
in  such  sense  from  God,  as  to  be  Son,  genuine  and  natural, 
from  the  Father,  but  only  as  creatures  because  they  are 
framed,  and  as  all  things  are  from  God,  then  neither  is  He 
from  the  substance  of  the  Father,  nor  is  the  Son  again  Son 
according  to  substance,  but  in  consequence  of  virtue,  as  we 
who  are  called  sons  by  grace.  But  if  He  only  is  from  God, 
as  a  genuine  Son,  as  He  is,  then  let  the  Son,  as  is  reasonable, 
be  called  from  the  substance  of  God. 

9.  Again,  the  illustration  of  the  Light  and  the  Radiance  has  §.23. 
this  meaning.  For  the  Saints  have  not  said  that  the  Word 
was  related  to  God  as  fire  kindled  from  the  heat  of  the  sun, 
which  is  commonly  put  out  again,  for  this  is  an  external 
work  and  a  creature  of  its  author,  but  they  all  preach  of  Him  as 
Radianceb,  thereby  to  signify  His  being  from  the  substance, 
proper  and1  indivisible,  and  His  oneness  with  the  Father. 
This  also  will  secure  His  true2  unalterableness  and  immuta- 
bility  ;  for  how  can  these  be  His,  unless  He  be  proper 

i.  10  fin.     "  The  nature  of  God  is  no  Father  as  a  light  from  a  light  or  as 

other  than  Himself,  for  He  is  simple  a  lamp  divided  into  two,  which  after 

and  uncompounded."    Cyril   Thesaur.  all   was    Arian   doctrine.     Athanasius 

p.  59.     "  "When  we  say  the  power  of  refers  to  fire,  Orat.  iv.  §.  2  and  10.  but 

the  Father,  we  say  nothing  else  than  still  to  fire  and  its  radiance.     However, 

the  substance  of  the  Father."   August,  we  find  the  illustration  of  fire  from  fire, 

de  Trin.  vii.  6.    And  so  Numenius  in  Justin.  Tryph.  61.  Tatian  contr.  Grsec. 

Eusebius,  "  Let  no  one  deride,  if  I  say  6.     At  this  early  day  the  illustration  of 

that  the  name  of  the  Immaterial  is  sub-  radiance  mighthave  a  Sabellian  bearing, 

stance  and  being."  Prsep.  Evang.  xi.  as  that  of  fire  in  Athan.  'shad  an  Arian. 

10.  Hence   Justin  protests   against    those 

b  Athan.  's  ordinary  illustration  is,  as  who  considered  the  Son  as4  'like  the  sun's 

here,  not  from  "  fire,"  but  from  "  ra-  light  in  the  heaven,"  which  tl  when  it 

diance,"   asrayya^a,    after    St.    Paul  sets,  goes  away  with  it,"  whereas  it  is 

and  the  Author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  as  "  fire  kindled  from  fire."  Tryph.  128. 

meaning  by  radiance  the  light  which  a  Athenagoras,  however,  like  Athanasius, 

light  diffuses  by  means  of  the   atmo-  says  "  as  light  from  fire,"  using  also 

sphere.     On  the  other  hand  Arius   in  the  word  Arttfuu,  effluence:  vid.  also 

his  letter  to  Alexander,  Epiph.  Hser.  Orig.  Periarch.  i.  2.n.  4.  Tertull.  Ap. 

69.   7.  speaks  against  the  doctrine  of  21.  Theognostus  infr.  §.  25. 
Hieracas  that  the   Son   was  from  the 

40  "  One  in  substance'"  but  brings  out  the  meaning  of  "Image" 

NICEN.  Offspring  of  the  Father's  substance?    for  this  too  must  be 

_5?-Ii  taken  to  confirm  His  '  identity  with  His  own  Father. 

^7«T°  10.  Our  explanation  then  having  so  religious  an  aspect, 
Christ's  enemies  should  not  be  startled  at  the  "  One  in 
substance"  either,  since  this  term  also  admits  of  being  soundly 
expounded  and  defended.  Indeed,  if  we  say  that  the 
Word  is  from  the  substance  of  God,  (for  after  what  has  been 
said  this  must  be  a  phrase  admitted  by  them,)  what  does  this 
mean  but  the  truth  and  eternity  of  the  substance  from  which 
He  is  begotten  ?  for  it  is  not  different  in  kind,  lest  it  be 
combined  with  the  substance  of  God,  as  something  foreign 
and  unlike  it.  Nor  is  He  like  only  outwardly,  lest  He 
seem  in  some  respect  or  wholly  to  be  other  in  substance,  as 
brass  shines  like  gold  and  silver  like  tin.  For  these  are  foreign 
and  of  other  nature,  and  are  separated  off  from  each  other  in 
nature  and  qualities,  nor  is  brass  proper  to  gold,  nor  is  the 

2  vid.  de  pigeon  born  from  the  dove2  ;  but  though  they  are  considered 
,  yet  they  differ  in  substance.  If  then  it  be  thus  with  the 

Mel.  et  gon?  let  mm  ke  a  creature  as  we  are,  and  not  One  in  sub- 

stance ;  but  if  the  Son  is  Word,  Wisdom,  Image  of  the  Father, 

Radiance,  He  must  in  all  reason  be  One  in  substance.     For 

3  1«  i.e.   unless5  it  be  proved  that  He  is  not  from  God,  but  an  instru- 

ifatow,  ment4  different  in  nature  and  different  in  substance,  surely 

the  Council  was  sound  in  its  doctrine  and  apposite  in  its 


$.  24.  !!•  Further,  let  every  corporeal  thought  be  banished  on  this 
subject  ;  and  transcending  every  imagination  of  sense,  let  us, 
with  the  pure  understanding  and  with  mind  alone,  apprehend 
•"'  ytrnn  the  Son's  genuine  5  relation  towards  the  Father,  and  the  Word's 
^7«Ta  proper6  relation  towards  God,  and  the  unvarying7  likeness 
of  the  radiance  towards  the  light:  for  as  the  words  "  Offspring" 
and  "  Son"  bear,  and  are  meant  to  bear,  no  human  sense,  but 
one  suitable  to  God,  in  like  manner  when  we  hear  the  phrase 
"  one  in  substance,"  let  us  not  fall  upon  human  senses,  and 
imagine  partitions  and  divisions  of  the  Godhead,  but  as 
having  our  thoughts  directed  to  things  immaterial,  let  us 

c  As   "  of  the  substance"  declared  "  likeness,"  even  "  like  in  substance" 

that  our  Lord  was  uncreate,  so  "  one  answering  for   this   purpose,  for  such 

in  substance"  declared  that  He  was  equal  phrases  might  all  be  understood  of  re- 

with  the  Father  ;  no  terno_4e*k^d  from  semblance  or  representation,  vid.  note  t. 

The  Son  the  one  Mediator  between  tlte  Father  and  creation.  41 

preserve  undivided  the  oneness  of  nature  and  the  identity  CHAP. 
of  light ;  for  this  is  proper  to  the  Son  as  regards  the  Father,  — 
and  in  this  is  shewn  that  God  is  truly  Father  of  the  Word. 
Here  again,  the  illustration  of  light  and  its  radiance  is 
in  point0.  Who  will  presume  to  say  that  the  radiance 
is  unlike  and  foreign  from  the  sun  ?  rather  who,  thus  con- 
sidering the  radiance  relatively  to  the  sun,  and  the  identity 
of  the  light,  would  not  say  with  confidence,  "  Truly  the  light 
and  the  radiance  are  one,  and  the  one  is  manifested  in  the 
other,  and  the  radiance  is  in  the  sun,  so  that  whoso  sees  this, 
sees  that  also  ?"  but  such  a  oneness  and  natural  possession1, ' &«'«*«•* 
what  should  it  be  named  by  those  who  believe  and  see  aright, 
!but  Offspring  one  in  substance  ?  and  God's  Offspring  what 
should  we  fittingly  and  suitably  consider,  but  the  Word,  and 
Wisdom,  and  Power  ?  which  it  were  a  sin  to  say  was  foreign 
from  the  Father,  or  a  crime  even  to  imagine  as  other  than 
with  Him  everlastingly. 

12.  For  by  this  Offspring  the  Father  made  all  things,  and 
-extending  His  Providence  unto  all  things,  by  Him  He 
•exercises  His  love  to  man,  and  thus  He  and  the  Father 
are  one,  as  has  been  said ;  unless  indeed  these  perverse  men 
make  a  fresh  attempt,  and  say  that  the  substance  of  the  W^ord 
is  not  the  same  as  the  Light  which  is  in  Him  from  the 
Father,  as  if  the  Light  in  the  Son  were  one  with  the  Father, 
but  He  Himself  foreign  in  substance  as  being  a  creature.  Yet 
this  is  simply  the  belief  of  Caiaphas  and  Samosatene,  which  the 
Church  cast  out,  but  they  now  are  disguising;  and  by  this 
they  fell  from  the  truth,  and  were  declared  to  be  heretics.  For 
if  He  partakes  in  fulness  the  light  from  the  Father,  why  is 
iHe  not  rather  that  which  others  partake  2,  that  there  be  no 2  via.  p. 
medium  introduced  between  Himself  and  the  Father?  Other- c.'n 
wise,  it  is  no  longer  clear  that  all  things  were  generated  by 
the  Son,  but  by  Him,  of  whom  He  too  partakes*.  And  if 

d  Athan.has  just  used  the  illustration  His  different  titles  to  be  those  of  dif- 

of  radiance  in  reference  to  "  of  the  ferent  beings  or  subjects,  or  not  really 

substance  :"  and  now  he  says  that  it  and  properly  to  belong  to  one  and  the 

equally  illustrates  "  one  in  substance;"  same  person  ;  so  that  the  Word  was  not 

the  light  diffused  from  the  sun  being  at  the  Son,  or  the  Radiance  not  the  Word, 

nnce  contemporaneous  and  homogeneous  or  our  Lord  was  the  Son,  but  only  im- 

with  its  original.  properly  the  Word,  not  the  true  Word, 

*  The  point  in  which  perhaps  all  the  Wisdom,  or  Radiance.  Paul  of  Samo- 

ancient  heresies  concerning  our  Lord's  sata,  Sabellius,  and  Arius,  agreed  in 

divine  nature  agreed,  was  in  considering  considering  that  the  Son  was  a  creature, 

42  The  Son  partaken  of  all  in  the  Spirit. 

.this  is  the  Word,  the  Wisdom  of  the  Father,  in  whom  the 
^-  Father  is  revealed  and  known,  and  frames  the  world,  and 
without  whom  the  Father  doth  nothing,  evidently  He  it  is 
who  is  from  the  Father :  for  all  things  generated  partake  of 
Him,  as  partaking  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  being  such,  He 
cannot  be  from  nothing,  nor  a  creature  at  all,  but  rather  the 
proper  Offspring  from  the  Father  as  the  radiance  from  light. 

and  that  He  was  called,  made  after,  or  the  Word  or  Wisdom  was  held  to  be 
inhabited  by  the  impersonal  attribute  personal,  it  became  the  doctrine  of 
called  the  Word  or  Wisdom.  When  Nestorius. 



Theognostus ;  Dionysius  of  Alexandria ;  Dionysius  of  Rome  ;  Origen. 

1.  THIS  then  is  the  sense  in  which  the  Fathers  at  Nicsea  CHAP. 

made  use  of  these  expressions ;  but  next  that  they  did  not  r — 

invent  them  for  themselves,  (since  this  is  one  of  then-  excuses,)  *" 
but  spoke  what  they  had  received  from  their  predecessors, 
proceed  we  to  prove  this  also,  to  cut  off  even  this  excuse 
from  them.  Know  then,  O  Arians,  foes  of  Christ,  that 
Theognostus3,  a  learned  man,  did  not  decline  the  phrase 
"  of  the  substance,"  for  in  the  second  book  of  his  Hypo- 
typoses,  he  writes  thus  of  the  Son : — 

"  The  substance  of  the  Son  is  not  any  thing  procured  from 
without,  nor  accruing  out  of  nothing1',  but  it  sprang  from  the 
Father's  substance,  as  the  radiance  of  light,  as  the  vapour  °  of 
water ;  for  neither  the  radiance,  nor  the  vapour,  is  the  water 
itself  or  the  sun  itself,  nor  is  it  alien  j  but  it  is  an  effluence  of  the 
Father's  substance,  which,  however,  suffers  no  partition.  For  as 
the  sun  remains  the  same,  and  is  not  impaired  by  the  rays  poured 
forth  by  it,  so  neither  does  the  Father's  substance  suffer  change, 
though  it  has  the  Son  as  an  Image  of  Itself d." 

Theognostus  then,  after  first  investigating  in  the  way  of  an 

a  Athanasius  elsewhere  calls  him  alone,"  says  Tertullian,  "because  there 
"  the  admirable  and  excellent."  ad  was  nothing  external  to  Him,  extrin- 
Serap.  iv.  9.  He  was  Master  of  the  secus ;  yet  not  even  then  alone,  for  He 
Catechetical  school  of  Alexandria  to-  had  with  Him,  what  He  had  in  Him- 
wards  the  end  of  the  3d  century,  being  self,  His  Reason."  in  Prax.  5.  Non 
a  scholar,  or  at  least  a  follower  of  per  adoptionem  spiritus  films  fit  extrin- 
Origen,  His  seven  books  of  Hypo-  secus,  sed  natura  filius  est.  Origen. 
typoses  treated  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  Periarch.  i.  2.  n.  4. 
of  angels,  and  evil  spirits,  of  the  Incar-  c  From  "Wisdom  7,  25.  and  so  Ori- 
nation,  and  the  Creation.  Photius,  gen.  Periarch.  i.  2.  n.  5.  and  9.  and 
who  gives  this  account,  Cod.  106,  ac-  Athan.  de  Sent.  Dionys.  15. 
cuses  him  of  heterodoxy  on  these  d  It  is  sometimes  erroneously  sup- 
points  ;  which  Athanasius  in  a  measure  posed  that  such  illustrations  as  this  are 
admits,  as  far  as  the  wording  of  his  intended  to  explain  how  the  Sacred 
treatise  went,  when  he  speaks  of  his  Mystery  in  question  is  possible,  whereas 
"  investigating  by  way  of  exercise."  they  are  merely  intended  to  shew  that 
Eusebius  does  not  mention  him  at  all.  the  words  we  use  concerning  it  are  not 

b  Vid.  above  §.  15.  fin.  "  God  was  self -contradictory ,  which  is  the   objec- 


Theognostus.     Dionysius  of  Alexandria. 

]S  ICE x.  exercise  %   proceeds    to    lav   down   his    sentiments    in    the 
DEF.    c          .  , 
foregoing  words. 

2.  Next,  Dionysius,  who  was  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
upon  his  writing  against  Sabellius  and  expounding  at  large 
the  Saviour's  economy  according  to  the  flesh,  and  thence 
proving  against  the  Sabellians  that  not  the  Father  but  His 
Word  was  made  flesh,  as  John  has  said,  was  suspected  of 
saying  that  the  Son  was  a  thing  made  and  generated,  and  not 
one  in  substance  with  the  Father;  on  this  he  writes  to  his 
namesake  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  explain  that  this 
was  a  slander  upon  himf.  And  he  assured  him  that  he  had 
not  called  the  Son  made,  nay,  did  confess  Him  to  be  even 
one  in  substance.  And  his  words  run  thus  : — 

"  And  I  have  written  in  another  letter  a  refutation  of  the  false 

tion  most  commonly  brought  against 
them.  To  say  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Son's  generation  does  not  intrench  upon 
the  Father's  perfection  and  immuta- 
bility, or  negative  the  Son's  eternity, 
seems  at  first  sight  inconsistent  with 
what  the  words  Father  and  Son  mean, 
till  another  image  is  adduced,  such  as 
the  sun  and  radiance,  in  which  that 
alleged  inconsistency  is  seen  to  exist 
in  fact.  Here  one  image  corrects 
another;  and  the  accumulation  of 
images  is  not,  as  is  often  thought,  the 
restless  and  fruitless  effect  of  the  mind 
to  enter  into  the  Mystery,  but  is  a  safe- 
guard against  any  one  image,  nay,  any 
collection  of  images  being  supposed  suffi- 
cient. If  it  be  said  that  the  language 
used  concerning  the  sun  and  its  radi- 
ance is  but  popular  not  philosophical, 
so  again  the  Catholic  language  con- 
cerning the  Holy  Trinity  may,  nay, 
must  be  economical,  not  adequate, 
conveying  the  truth,  not  in  the  tongues 
of  angels,  but  under  human  modes  of 
thought  and  speech. 

e  iv  yuf^vctfice.  \^7a.ffK;.  And  SO  §.  27. 
01  Origen,  I^YITUV  xai  yvftvii^uv.  Con- 

stantine  too,  writing  to  Alexander  and 
Arius,  speaks  of  altercation,  ^t/<r/«J?j 
ntas  yupveiFttt.?  'ivixet.  Socr.  i.  7-  In 
somewhat  a  similar  way,  Athauasius 
speaks  of  Dionysius  writing  xctr'  elxovo- 
F»'et>,  economically,  or  with  reference  to 
certain  persons  addressed  or  objects 
contemplated,  de  Sent.  D.  6.  and  26. 

f  It  is  well  known  that  the  great  de- 
velopment of  the  power  of  the  See  of 
Rome  was  later  than  the  age  of 

Athanasius;  but  it  is  here  in  place,  to 
state  historically  some  instances  of  an 
earlier  date  in  which  it  interfered  in 
the  general  conduct  of  the  Church.  S. 
Clement  of  Rome  wrote  a  pastoral 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  at  a  time 
when  they  seem  to  have  been  without  a 
Bishop.  The  heretic  Marcion,  on  his 
excommunication  at  home,  came  to 
Rome  upon  the  death  of  Hyginus  the 
ninth  Bishop,  and  was  repulsed  by  the 
elders  of  the  see.  Epiph.  Hser.  42.  n. 
1.  Polycarp  came  to  Anicetus  on  the 
question  of  Easter.  Euseb.  Hist.  iv.  14. 
Soter,  not.  only  sent  alms  to  the 
Churches  of  Christendom  generally, 
according  to  the  primitive  custom  of 
his  Church,  but  "  exhorted  affection- 
ately the  brethren  who  came  up  thither 
as  a  father  his  children."  ibid.  iv.  23. 
Victor  denounced  the  Asian  Churches 
for  observing  Easter  after  the  Jewish 
custom,  ibid.  v.  24.  Paul  of  Samosata 
was  put  out  of  the  see  house  at  An- 
tioch  by  the  civil  power,  on  the  decision 
of  "  the  Bishops  of  Italy  and  of 
Rome."  ibid.  vii.  30.  For  a  considera- 
tion of  this  subject,  as  far  as  it  is  an 
objection  to  the  Anglican  view  of  ecclesi- 
astical polity,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Mr.  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church, 
vii.  3  and  4.  where  five  reasons  are  as- 
signed for  the  early  pre-eminence  of  the 
Roman  Church ;  the  number  of  its 
clergy  and  people,  its  wealth  and 
charity,  its  apostolical  origin,  the 
purity  of  its  faith,  and  the  temporal 
dignity  of  the  city  of  Rome. 

Dionysius  of  Rome.  45 

charge  they  bring  against  me,  that  I  deny  that  Christ  was  one  in  CHAP. 
substance  with  God  For  though  I  say  that  I  have  not  found  VI. 
this  term  any  where  in  Holy  Scripture,  yet  my  remarks  which 
follow,  and  which  they  have  not  noticed,  are  not  inconsistent  with 
that  belief.  For  I  instanced  a  human  production  as  being  evidently 
homogeneous,  and  I  observed  that  undeniably  parents  differred  from 
their  children  only  in  not  being  the  same  individuals,  otherwise 
there  could  be  neither -parents  nor  children.  And  my  letter,  as 
I  said  before,  owing  to  present  circumstances  I  am  unable  to  pro- 
duce ;  or  I  would  have  sent  you  the  very  words  I  used,  or  rather  a 
copy  of  it  all,  which,  if  I  have  an  opportunity,  I  will  do  still. 
But  I  am  sure  from  recollection  that  I  adduced  parallels  of  things 
kindred  with  each  other;  for  instance,  that  a  plant  grown  from 
seed  or  from  root,  was  other  than  that  from  which  it  sprang,  yet 
was  altogether  one  in  nature  with  it g :  and  that  a  stream  flowing 
from  a  fountain,  gained  a  new  name,  for  that  neither  the  fountain 
was  called  stream,  nor  the  stream  fountain,  and  both  existed,  and 
the  stream  was  the  water  from  the  fountain." 

3.  And  that  the  Word  of  God  is  not  a  work  or  creature,  &  26. 
but  an  offspring  proper  to  the  Father's  substance  and  indivi- 
sible, as  the  great  Council  wrote,  here  you  may  see  in  the 
words  of  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  who,  while  writing 
against  the  Sabellians,  thus  inveighs  against  those  who  dared 
=to  say  so : — 

"  Next,  I  reasonably  turn  to  those  who  divide  and  cut  into  pieces 
and  destroy  that  most  sacred  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  God,  the 
'Divine  Monarchy11,  making  it  certain  three  powers  and  partitive1 


8  The  Eusebians  at  Nicsea  objected  15.  also  Orat.  20.  7.  and  Epiph.  Hser. 

to  this  image,  Socr.  i.  8.  as  implying  57.  5.  Tertullian,  before  Dionysius, 

that  the  Son  was  a  arga/3aA.*j,  issue  or  uses  the  word  Monarchia,  which  Prax- 

development,  as  Valentinus  taught,  eas  had  perverted  into  a  kind  of  Uni- 

Epiph.  Hser.  69.  7  •  Athanasius  else-  tarianism  or  Sabellianisrn,  in  Prax.  3. 

where  uses  it  himself.  Irenseus  too  wrote  on  the  Monarchy, 

•>  By  the  Monarchy  is  meant  the  i.  e.  against  the  doctrine  that  God  is 
doctrine  that  the  Second  and  Third  the  author  of  evil.  Eus.  Hist.  v.  20. 
Persons  in  the  Ever-blessed  Trinity  And  before  him  was  Justin's  work  de 
are  ever  to  he  referred  in  our  thoughts  Monarchia,  where  the  word  is  used  in 
to  the  First  as  the  Fountain  of  God-  opposition  to  Polytheism.  The  Mar- 
head,  vid.  p.  25.  note  e.  and  p.  33.  note  cionites,  whom  Dionysius  presently 
r.  It  is  one  of  the  especial  senses  in  mentions,  are  also  specified  in  the  above 
which  God  is  said  to  be  one.  "  "We  extract  by  Athan.  vid.  also  Cyril.  Hier. 
are  not  introducing  three  origins  or  Cat.  xvi.  4.  Epiphanius  says  that 
three  Fathers,  as  the  Marcionites  and  their  three  origins  were  God,  the  Cre- 
Manichees,  just  as  our  illustration  is  ator,  and  the  evil  spirit.  Hser.  42, 3.  or  as 
not  of  three  suns,  but  of  sun  and  its  Augustine  says,  the  good,  the  just,  and 
radiance."  Orat  iii.  $.  15.  vid.  also  iv.  the  wicked,  which  may  be  taken  to  mean 
§.1.  "  The  Father  is  union,  "nuns,"  nearly  the  same  thing.  Hser.  22.  The 
says  S.  Greg.  Naz.  "  from  whom  and  Apostolical  Canons  denounce  those  who 
unto  whom  are  the  others."  Orat  42.  baptize  into  Three  Unoriginate  ;  vid. 


Heresy  of  Tr  it  he-ism . 

N i CEN.  subsistences  '  and  godheads  three.  I  am  told  that  some  among 
PEF»  you  who  are  catechists  and  teachers  of  the  Divine  Word,  take  the 
lead  in  this  tenet,  who  are  diametrically  opposed,  so  to  speak,  to 
Sabellius's  opinions ;  for  he  blasphemously  says  that  the  Son  is 
the  Father,  and  the  Father  the  Son,  but  they  in  some  sort  preach 
three  Gods,  as  dividing  the  Holy  Unity  into  three  subsistences 
foreign  to  each  other  and  utterly  separate.  For  it  must  needs  be 
that  with  the  God  of  the  Universe,  the  Divine  Word  is  one,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  must  repose 'and  habitate  in  God;  thus  in  one  as 
in  a  summit,  I  mean  the  God  of  the  Universe,  must  the  Divine 
Trinity k  be  gathered  up  and  brought  together.  For  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  presumptuous  Marcion,  to  sever  and  divide 
the  Divine  Monarchy  into  three  origins, — a  devil's  teaching,  not 
that  of  Christ's  true  disciples  and  lovers  of  the  Saviour's  lessons. 
For  they  know  well  that  a  Trinity  is  preached  by  divine  Scrip- 
ture, but  that  neither  Old  Testament  nor  New  preaches  three 

4.  Equally  must  one  censure  those  who  hold  the  Son  to  be 
a  work,  and  consider  that  the  Lord  has  come  into  being,  as  one  of 
things  which  really  came  to  be  ;  whereas  the  divine  oracles  witness 
to  a  generation  suitable  to  Him  and  becoming,  but  not  to  any 
fashioning  or  making.  A  blasphemy  then  is  it,  not  ordinary,  but 

also  Athan.  Tom.  ad  Antioch.  5.  Naz. 
Orat.  20.  6.  Basil  denies  r^t7f  fyxixal 
vxofrdffHSi  ^e  Sp.  S.  38.  which  is  a 
Platonic  phrase. 

1  And  so  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  in 
a  fragment  preserved  by  S.  Basil,  "  Tf 
because  the  subsistences  are  three,  they 
say  that  they  are  partitive,  ft,ip,i0nrp,tvKs , 
still  three  there  are,  though  these  per- 
sons dissent,  or  they  utterly  destroy  the 
Divine  Trinity."  deSp.  S.n.  72.  Athan. 
expresses  the  same  more  distinctly,  oi> 
v^its  vvoffTUfftis  f£lf*.i£ttrp,iviis ,  Expos. 
Fid.  §.  2.  In  S.  Greg.  Naz.  we  find 
aftigitrrei  Iv  fUfitfirftitut  fi  6torns.  Orat. 
31.  14.  Elsewhere  for  tutf*.  he  substi- 
tutes a.Ttffr)-yfJt,iva.i.  Orat.  20.  6.  xvtlsvu- 
(Atmt  aZ.XfaavxKi^itff'zraffftivcts  Orat.  23. 
6. as  infra  %itas  aXX^Xwv  •xavroc.iru.fft  xi^ca- 
pffftitKf.  The  passage  in  the  text 
comes  into  question  in  the  controversy 
about  the  \\  vfotrruffius  ?j  ova-ixs  of  the 
Nicene  Creed,  of  which  infra  on  the 
Creed  itself  in  Eusebius's  Letter. 

k  The  word  rpas  translated  Trinity 
is  first  used  by  Theophilus,  ad  Autol.  ii. 
15.  Gibbon  remarks  that  the  doctrine  of 
"  a  numerical  rather  than  a  generical 
unity,"  which  has  been  explicitly  put 
forth  by  the  Latin  Church,  is  "  favoured 
by  the  Latin  language ;  r^as  seems  to 
excite  the  idea  of  substance,  trinitas  of 
qualities."  ch.21.  note  74.  It  is  certain 
that  the  Latin  view  of  the  sacred  truth. 

when  perverted,  becomes  Sabellianism  ; 
and  that  the  Greek,  when  perverted,  be- 
comes Arianism  ;  and  we  find  Arius 
arising  in  the  East,  Sabellius  in  the 
West,  It  is  also  certain  that  the  word 
Trinitas  is  properly  abstract;  and  ex- 
presses T£ia.f  or  "  a  three,"  only  in  an 
ecclesiastical  sense.  But  Gibbon  does 
not  seem  to  observe  that  Unitas  is 
abstract  as  well  as  Trinitas ;  and  that 
we  might  just  as  well  say  in  con- 
sequence, that  the  Latins  held  an  ab- 
stract unity  or  a  unity  of  qualities, 
while  the  Greeks  by  paws  taught  the 
doctrine  of  "  a  one"  or  a  numerical 
unity.  "  Singularitatem  hanc  dico,  says 
S.  Ambrose,  quod  Greece  (tovdms  dici- 
tur  ;  singularitas  ad  personam  pertinet, 
unitas  ad  naturam."  de  Fid.  v.  1.  It 
is  important,  however,  to  understand, 
that  u  Trinity"  does  not  mean  the  state 
or  condition  of  being  three,  as  humanity 
is  the  condition  of  being  man,  but  is  sy- 
nonymous with  "  three  persons."  Hu- 
manity does  not  exist  and  cannot  be 
addressed,  but  the  Holy  Trinity  is  a 
three,  or  a  unity  which  exists  in  three. 
Apparently  from  not  considering  this, 
Luth-r  and  Calvin  objected  to  the  word 
Trinity,  "  It  is  a  common  prayer," 
says  Calvin,  "  Holy  Trinity,  one  God, 
have  mercy  on  us.  It  displeases  me, 
and  savours  throughout  of  barbarism." 
Ep.  ad  Poloo.  p.  796. 

Heresy  of  making  the  Son  a  creature.  47 

even  the  highest,  to  say  that  the  Lord  is  in  any  sort  a  handiwork.  CHAP. 
For  if  He  came  to  be  Son,  once  He  was  not;  but  He  was  always,     "VI. 
if  (that  is)   He  be  in  the  Father,  as  He  says  Himself,  and  if  the  ~~ 
Christ  be  Word  and  Wisdom  and  Power,  (which,  as  ye  know,  divine 
Scripture  says,)  and  these  attributes  be  powers  of  God.  If  then  the 
Son  came  into  being  once,  these  attributes  were  not;  consequently 
there  was  a  time,  when  God  was  without  them  ;  which  is  most  ex- 
travagant.    And  why  say  more  on  these  points  to  you,  men  full 
of  the  Spirit  and  well  aware  of  the  extravagances  which  come  to 
view  from  saying  that  the  Son  is  a  work  ?     Not  attending,  as  I 
consider,  to  this  circumstance,  the  authors  of  this  opinion  have 
entirely  missed  the  truth,  in  explaining,  contrary  to  the  sense  of 
divine  and  prophetic  Scripture  in  the  passage,  the  words,  The  Lord  Prov.  8, 
hath  created  Me  a  beginning  of  His  ivays  unto  His  works.    For  the  22. 
sense  of  He  created,  as  ye  know,  is  not  one,  for  we  must  under- 
stand He  created  in  this  place,  as  f  He  set  over  the  works  made 
by  Him/  that  is,  '  made  by  the  Son  Himself/     And  He  created 
here   must  not  be   taken   for   made,   for   creating   differs   from 
making ;  Is  not  He  Thy  Father  that  hath  bought  thee  P  hath  He  not  Deut. 
made  thee  and  created  thee  P  says  Moses  in  his  great  song  in  Deu-32,  6. 
teronomy.     And  one  may  say  to  them,  O  men  of  great  hazard, 
is  He  a  work,  who  is  the  First-born  of  every  creature,  who  is  borncol.  1, 
from  the   ivomb   before  the  morning  star,  who   said,  as   Wisdom,  15. 
Before  all  the  hills  He  begets  Me?  And  in  many  passages  of  theps- 110» 
divine  oracles  is  the  Son  said  to  have  been  generated,  but  now  here  pnv  g 
to  have2  come  into  being;  which  manifestly  convicts  those  of  rnis- 25. 
conception  about  the  Lord's  generation,  who  presume  to  call  His  1  y«yg»- 
divine  and  ineffable  generation  a  making !.     Neither  then  may  we  wteu 
divide  into  three  Godheads  the  wonderful  and  divine  Unity ;  nor  *  7{yav«- 
disparage  with  the  name  of  '  work'  the  dignity  and  exceeding va' 
majesty  of  the  Lord ;   but  we  must  believe  in  God  the  Father 
Almighty,  and  in  Christ  Jesus  His  Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  hold  that  to  the  God  of  the  universe  the  Word  is  united.     For 
/,  says  He,  and  the  Father  are  one ;  and,  /  in  the  Father  and  the 

1  This  extract  discloses  to  us,  (in  con-  of  the  heresy,  and  that  not  at  first  sight 
nexion  with  the  passages  from  Diony-  an  obvious  one,  which  is  found  among  the 
sius  Alex,  here  and  in  the  de  Sent.  D.)  Arians,  Prov.  8,  22.  3.  The  same 
a  remarkable  anticipation  of  the  Arian  texts  were  used  by  the  Catholics, 
controversy  in  the  third  century.  1.  It  which  occur  in  the  Arian  controversy, 
appears  that  the  very  symbol  of %t on  alx,  e.  g.  Deut.  32,  6.  against  Prov.  8,  22. 
j)»,  "  once  He  was  not,"  was  asserted  or  and  such  as  Ps.  110,  3.  Prov.  8,25. 
implied;  vid.  also  the  following  extract  and  the  two  John  10,  30.  and  14,  10. 
from  Origen,  §.  27.  and  Origen  Peri-  4.  The  same  Catholic  symbols  and 
archon,  iv.  28.  where  mention  is  also  statements  are  found,  e.  g.  "  begotten 
made  of  the  ȣ  olx.  Strut,  "  out  of  not  made,"  "  one  in  substance,"  "  Tri- 
nothing,"  which  was  the  Arian  symbol  nity,"  utiotiprot,  ava^ev,  ai/yivt? ,  light 
in  opposition  to  "of  the  substance."  from  light,  &c.  Much  might  be  said 
Allusions  are  made  besides,  to  "the  on  this  circumstance,  as  forming  part  of 
Father  not  being  always  Father,"  de  the  proof  of  the  very  early  date  of  the  de- 
Sent.  D.  15.  and  "  the  Word  being  velopment  and  formation  of  the  Catho- 
brought  to  be  by  the  true  Word,  and  lie  theology,  which  we  are  at  first  sight 
Wisdom  by  the  true  Wisdom;"  ibid.  25.  apt  to  ascribe  to  the  4th  and  5th  cen- 
2.Thesamespecialtextisusedindefence  turies. 

48  The  labour-loving  Or'n/cn. 

NICEN.  Father  in  Me.     For  thus  both  the  Divine  Trinity,  and  the  holy 
DBF.   preaching  of  the  Monarchy,  will  be  preserved." 

§.  27.  5.  And  concerning  the  everlasting  co-existence  of  the  Word 
with  the  Father,  and  that  He  is  not  of  another  substance  or 
subsistence,  but  proper  to  the  Father's,  as  the  Bishops  in 
the  Council  said,  hear  again  from  the  labour-loving ra  Origen 
also.  For  what  he  has  written  as  if  inquiring  and  exercising 
himself,  that  let  no  one  take  as  expressive  of  his  own  sen- 
timents, but  of  parties  who  are  disputing  in  the  investigation, 
but  what  he"  definitely  declares,  that  is  the  sentiment  of  the 
i  vid.  p.  labour-loving  man.  After  his  exercises  !  then  against  the 
44, ncte  heretics,  straightway  he  introduces  his  personal  belief, 

"  If  there  be  an  Image  of  the  Invisible  God,  it  is  an  invisible 
Image ;  nay,  I  will  be  bold  to  add,  that,  as  being  the  likeness  of 
the  Father,  never  was  it  not  For  else  was  that  God,  who,  ac- 
cording to  John,  is  called  Light,  (for  God  is  Light,)  without  the 
radiance  of  His  proper  glory,  that  a  man  should  presume  to  assert 
the  Son's  origin  of  existence,  as  if  before  He  was  not.  But 
when  was  not  that  Image  of  the  Father's  Ineffable  and  Nameless 
and  Unutterable  subsistence,  that  Expression  and  Word,  and  He 
that  knows  the  Father  ?  for  let  him  understand  well  who  dares  to 
say,  '  Once  the  Son  was  net,'  that  he  is  saying,  *  Once  Wisdom 
was  not,'  and  '  Word  was  not,'  and  '  Life  was  not.' " 

6.  And  again  elsewhere  he  says : — 

"  But  it  is  not  innocent  nor  without  peril,  if  because  of  our 
weakness  of  understanding  we  deprive  God,  as  far  as  in  us  lies, 
of  the  Only-begotten  Word  ever  co-existing  with  Him ;  and  the 
Wisdom  in  which  He  rejoiced;  else  He  must  be  conceived  as 
not  always  possessed  of  joy." 

See,  we  are  proving  that  this  view  has  been  transmitted 
from  father  to  father;  but  ye,  O  modern  Jews  and 
disciples  of  Caiaphas,  how  many  fathers  can  ye  assign  to 

m   QiXaveieu,  and  SO  Serap.  iv.  9.  *ou  qn^vivou  TO  Q^ewftti  \vn.      'l  aXXi. 

n  &!  ftlv  us  &<ruv  KKfyvfAVK%6>vtj'£u4't,  Certe  legendum  «XX'  «,  idque  omnino 

UTOV  ty^evouvros  3i%ia-£u  T<S'  exigit  sensus."    Montfaucon.     Rather 

wirin  iv  -ry  for  atiius  read  «  &  <ij,  and  put  the  stop 

T«I,    rotJ7«  at  £»jT£ry  instead  ot 

The  Nicene  Council  did  but  consign  tradition  to  writing.  4!) 

your  phrases  ?     Not  one  of  the  understanding  and  wise  ;  for  CHAP. 
all  abhor  you,  but  the  devil  alone1;    none  but  he  is  your-- 
father  in  this  apostasy,  who  both  in  the  beginning  scattered  Q 
on  you  the  seed  of  this  irreligion,  and  now  persuades  you 
to  slander  the  Ecumenical  Council0,  for  committing  to  writing, 
not  your  doctrines,  but  that  which  from  the  beginning  thost^ 
who  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  Word  have  handed 
down  to  usp.     For  the  faith  which  the  Council  has  confessed 
in  writing,  that  is  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  ;  to  assert 
this,   the   blessed    Fathers   so   expressed   themselves   while 

0  vid.  supr.  §.  4.  Orat.  i.  §.  7.  Ad 
Afros.  2  twice.  Apol.  contr.  Arian.  7. 
ad  Ep.  ^Eg.  5.  Epiph.  Hser.  70.  9. 
Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iii.  6.  The  Council 
was  more  commonly  called  pfyaXv 
vid.  supr.  §.  26.  The  second  General 
Council,  A.D.  381,  took  the  name  of 
ecumenical,  vid.  Can.  6.  fin.  but  inci- 
dentally. The  Council  of  Ephesus  so 
styles  itself  in  the  opening  of  its  Synodi- 
cal  Letter. 

P  The  profession  under  which  the 
decrees  of  Councils  come  to  us  is  that 
of  setting  forth  in  writing  what  has  ever 
been  held  orally  or  implicitly  in  the 
Church.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of 
such  phrases  as  iyy^utfus  ify-rtfa  with 
reference  to  them.  Thus  Damasus, 
Theod.  Hist.v.  10.  speaks  of  that  "  apo- 
stolical faith,  which  was  set  forth  in 
writing  by  tbe  Fathers  in  Nicsa."  On 
the  other  hand,  Ephrem  of  Antioch, 
speaks  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's 
perfect  humanity  being  "  inculcated  by 
our  Holy  Fathers,  but  not  as  yet  [i.  e. 
till  the  Council  of  Chalcedon]  being 
confirmed  by  the  decree  of  an  ecumeni- 
cal Council."  Phot.  229.  p.  801.(syy?«- 

s,  however,  sometimes  relates  to  the 
act  of  subscribing.  Phot.  ibid,  or  to  Scrip- 
ture, Clement.  Strom,  i.  init.  p.  321.) 
Hence  Athan.  says  ad  Afros.  1  and  2. 
that  "  the  Word  of  the  Lord  which 
was  given  through  the  ecumenical 
Council  in  Nicaea  remainelhfor  ever  ;" 
and  uses  against  its  opposers  the  texts, 
"  Remove  not  the  ancient  landmark 
which  thy  fathers  have  set,"  (vid.  also 
Dionysius  in  Eus  Hist.  vii.  7.)  and  "  He 
that  curseth  his  father  or  his  mother, 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  Prov.  22, 
28.  Ex.  21, 17.  vid.  also  Athan.  ad  Epict. 
1.  And  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  pro- 
fesses to  "  drive  away  the  doctrines  of 
error  by  a  common  decree,  and  renew 
the  unswerving  faith  of  the  fathers," 

Act.  i-.  p.  452.  "  as,"  they  proceed, 
"  from  of  old  the  prophets  spoke  of 
Christ,  and  He  Himself  instructed  us, 
and  the  creed  of  the  Fathers  has  de- 
livered to  us,"  whereas  "  other  faith  it 
is  not  lawful  for  any  to  bring  forth,  or 
to  write,  or  to  draw  up,  or  to  hold,  or 
to  teach."  p.  456.  vid.  S.  Leo.  supr. 
p.  5.  note  m.  This,  however,  did  not 
interfere  with  their  adding  without  un- 
doing: "  For,"  says  Vigilius,  "  if  it 
were  unlawful  to  receive  aught  further 
after  the  Nicene  statutes,  on  what 
authority  venture  we  to  assert  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father,  which  it  is  notorious  was 
there  omitted  H"  contr.  Eutych.  v.  init. 
he  gives  other  instances,  some  in  point, 
others  not.  vid.  also  Eulogius,  apud 
Phot.  Cod.  23.  pp.  829.  853.  Yet  to 
add  to  the  confession  of  the  Church  is  not 
to  add  to  ihefaithj  since  nothing  can  be 
added  to  the  faith.  Leo,  Ep.  124. 
p.  1237.  Nay,  Athan.  says  that  the 
Nicene  faith  is  sufficient  to  refute 
every  heresy,  ad  Max.  5.  fin.  also  Leo. 
Ep.  54.  p.  956.  and  Naz.  Ep.  102.  init. 
excepting,  however,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  which  explains  his  mean- 
ing. The  Henoticon  of  Zeno  says  the 
same,  but  with  the  intention  of  dealing 
a  blow  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
Evagr.  iii.  14.  p.  345.  Aetius  at 
Chalcedon  says  that  at  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon  the  Fathers  did  not  pro- 
fess to  draw  up  an  exposition  of  faith, 
and  that  Cyril  and  Leo  did  but  in- 
terpret the  Creed."  Cone.  t.  2.  p.  428. 
Leo  even  says  that  the  Apostles' 
Creed  is  sufficient  against  all  heresies, 
and  that  Eutyches  erred  on  a  point 
"  of  which  our  Lord  wished  no  one 
of  either  sex  in  the  Church  to  be  igno- 
rant," and  he  wishes  Eutyches  to  take 
the  plenitude  of  the  Creed  "  puro 
et  simplici  corde."  Ep.  31.  p.  857,  8. 

50  Arians  quarrelled  with  the  sense,  not  the  words  merely. 

NICEN.  condemning  the  Arian  heresy;  and  this  is  a  chief  reason  why 

-  these  apply  themselves  to  calumniate  the  Council.     For  it  is 

1»upr.§.not  the  terms  which  trouble  them1,  but  that  those  terms 

21.  init.  .  .  ..        . 

prove  them  to  be  heretics,  and  presumptuous  beyond  other 


This  term  afterwards  adopted  by  them;  and  why;  three  senses  of  it. 
A  fourth  sense.  Ingenerate  denotes  God  in  contrast  to  His  creatures, 
not  to  His  Son;  Father  the  scriptural  title  instead;  Conclusion. 

1.  THIS  in  fact  was  the  reason,  when  the  unsound  nature  CHAP. 
of  their  phrases  had  been  exposed  at  that  time,  and  they  VI1' 
were  henceforth  open  to  the  charge  of  irreligion,  that  they  $ 
proceeded  to  borrow  of  the  Greeks  the  term  Ingenerate  % 
that,  under  shelter  of  it,  they  might  reckon  among  the  things 
generate  and  the  creatures,  that  Word  of  God,  by  whom 
these  very  things  came  to  be;  so  unblushing  are  they  in 
their  irreligion,  so  obstinate  in  their  blasphemies  against  the 
Lord.  If  then  this  want  of  shame  arises  from  ignorance 
of  the  term,  they  ought  to  learn  of  those  who  gave  it 
them,  and  who  have  not  scrupled  to  say  that  even  in- 
tellect, which  they  derive  from  Good,  and  the  soul  which 
proceeds  from  intellect,  though  their  respective  origins  be 
known,  are  notwithstanding  ingenerate,  for  they  understand 
that  by  so  saying  they  do  not  disparage  that  first  Origin 
of  which  the  others  come b.  This  being  the  case,  let  them 

a  etystnro*.  Opportunity  will  occur  tal;"  but  Athan.  is  referring  to  an- 

for  noticing  this  celebrated  word  on  other  subject,  the  Platonic,  or  rather 

Orat.  i.  30—34.  where  the  present  the  Eclectic  Trinity.  Thus  Theodoret, 

passage  is  partly  re-written,  partly  "  Plotinus,  and  Numenius,  explaining 

transcribed.  Mention  is  also  made  of  the  sense  of  Plato,  say,  that  he  taught 

it  in  the  De  Syn.  46,  47.  Athanasius  Three  principles  beyond  time  and  eter- 

would  seem  to  have  been  but  partially  nal,  Good,  Intellect,  and  the  Soul  of 

acquain ted  with  the  writings  of  the  Ano-  all,"  de  Affect.  Cur.  ii.  p.  750.  And 

moeans,  whose  symbol  it  was,  and  to  so  Plotinus  himself,  "  It  is  as  if  one 

have  argued  with  them  from  the  writ-  were  to  place  Good  as  the  centre,  In- 

ings  of  the  elder  Arians,  who  had  also  tellect  like  an  immoveable  circle  round, 

made  use  of  it.  and  Soul  a  moveable  circle, and  moveable 

b  Montfaucon  quotes  a  passage  from  by  appetite."  4  Ennead.  iv.  c.  16.  vid. 

Plato's  Phaedrus,  in  which  the  human  Porphyry  in  Cyril,  contr.  Julian,  viii.  p. 

soul  is  called  "  ingenerate  and  immor-  271.  vid.  ibid.  i.  p.  32.  Plot.  3  Ennead. 

E  2 

52  Arians  used  phrases,  neither  in  nor  according  to  Scripture. 

NICEN.  say  the  like  themselves,  or  else  not  speak  at  all,  of  what  they 

— ^-  do  not  know.     But  if  they  consider  they  are  acquainted  with 

the  subject,  then  they  must  be  interrogated;    for0  the  ex- 

1  supr.  p.  pression  is  not  from  divine   Scripture1,  but  they  are  con- 

te  tentious,  as  elsewhere,  for  unscriptural  positions.     Just  as  I 

have  related  the  reason  and  sense,  with  which  the  Council 

and  the  Fathers  before  it  defined   and   published  "  of  the 

substance,"   and   "  one   in    substance,"   agreeably   to    what 

Scripture  says  of  the  Saviour ;  so  now  let  them,  if  they  can, 

answer  on  their  part  what  has  led  them  to  this  unscriptural 

phrase,  and  in  what  sense  they  call  God  Ingenerate  ? 

2.  In  truth,  I  am  told d, that  the  name  has  different  senses; 
philosophers  say  that  it  means,  first,  "  what  has  not  yet,  but 
may,  come  to  be ;"  next,  "  what  neither  exists,  nor  can  come 
into  being;"  and  thirdly,  "  what  exists  indeed,  but  was  neither 
generated  nor  had  origin  of  being,  but  is  everlasting  and 
indestructible0."  Now  perhaps  they  will  wish  to  pass  over  the 

v.  2  and  3.  Athan.'s  testimony  that 
the  Platonists  considered  their  three 
vrotrrdpnj  all  ingenerate  is  perhaps  a 
singular  one.  In  5  Ennead.  iv.  1. 
Plotinus  says  what  seems  contrary  to 
it,  fi  $\ag%n  ayivvyros,  speaking  of  His 
>r&yu.6ov.  Yet  Plato,  quoted  by  Theo- 
doret,  ibid.  p.  749,  speaks  of  t'jrt 

i  ,  on  ftKXiffTtx.)  Orat.  i. 
§.  36.  de  Syn.  §.  21.  lin.  oruv  (Jt-i^yra. 
Apol.  ad  Const.  23.  x«J  ^aA/^-ra,  de 
Syn.  §.  42.  54. 

d  And  so  de  Syn.  $.  46.  "  we  have 
on  careful  inquiry  ascertained,  &c." 
Again,  "  I  have  acquainted  myself  on 
their  account  [the  Arians']  with  the 
meaning  of  Kyivvrav."  Orat.  i.  §.  30. 
This  is  remarkable,  for  Athan.  was  a 
man  of  liberal  education,  as  his  Orat. 
contr.Gent.  and  de  Incarn.  shew,  especi- 
ally his  acquaintance  with  the  Platonic 
philosophy.  Sulpicius  too  speaks  of 
him  as  a  jurisconsultus,  Sacr.  Hist.  ii. 
50.  St.  Gregory  Naz.  says,  that  he 
gave  some  attention,  but  not  much,  to 
the  subjects  of  general  education,  run 
\yxvx\iuv,  that  he  might  not  be  alto- 
gether ignorant,  of  what  he  nevertheless 
despised,  Orat.  21.  6.  In  the  same  way 
S.  Basil,  whose  cultivation  of  mind 
none  can  doubt,  speaks  slightingly  of 
his  own  philosophical  knowledge.  He 
writes  of  his  "  neglecting  his  own 

weakness,  and  being  utterly  unex- 
ercised  in  such  disquisitions;"  contr. 
Eunom.  init.  And  so  in  de  Sp.  §.  5. 
he  says,  that  "  they  who  have  given 
time"  to  vain  philosophy,  "  divide 
causes  into  principal,  co-opera tive,"&c. 
Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  having  "  ex- 
pended much  time  on  vanity,  and 
wasted  nearly  all  his  youth  in  the 
vain  labour  of  pursuing  the  studies  of 
that  wisdom  which  God  has  made 
foolishness,"  Ep.  223.  2.  In  truth, 
Christianity  has  a  philosophy  of  its  own. 
Thus  in  the  commencement  of  his  Vise 
Dux  Anastasiussays, "  It  is  a  first  point 
to  be  understood,  that  the  tradition  of 
the  Catholic  Church  does  not  proceed 
upon,  or  follow,  the  philosophical  de- 
finitions in  all  respects,  and  especially 
as  regards  the  mystery  of  Christ,  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  a  cer- 
tain rule  of  its  own,  evangelical  and 
apostolical."  p.  20. 

8  Four  senses  of  «y$v>jr«v  are  enu- 
merated, Orat.  i.  §.  30.  1.  What  is 
not  as  yet,  but  is  possible ;  2.  what 
neither  has  been,  nor  can  be  ;  3.  what 
exists,  but  has  not  come  to  be  from  any 
cause  ;  4.  what  is  not  made,  but  is  ever. 
Only  two  senses  are  specified  in  the  de 
Syn.  §.  46.  and  in  these  the  question 
really  lies;  1.  what  is,  but  without 
a  cause ;  2.  uncreate. 

The  equivocation  of  the  word  Ingenerate.  53 

first  two  senses,  from  the  absurdity  which  follows ;  for  according  CHAP. 
to  the  first,  things  that  already  have  come  to  be,  and  things  that  -^H:_ 
are  expected  to  be,  are  ingenerate ;  and  the  second  is  more 
extravagant  still ;  accordingly  they  will  proceed  to  the  third 
sense,  and  use  the  word  in  it :  though  here,  in  this  sense  too, 
their  irreligion  will  be  quite  as  great.  For  if  by  Ingenerate 
they  mean  what  has  no  origin  of  being,  nor  is  generated  or 
created,  but  eternal,  and  say  that  the  Word  of  God  is  contrary 
to  this,  who  comprehends  not  the  craft  of  these  foes  of  God  ? 
who  but  would  stone f  such  madmen  ?  for,  when  they  are 
ashamed  to  bring  forward  again  those  first  phrases  which  they 
fabled,  and  which  were  condemned,  the  bad  men  have  taken 
another  way  to  signify  them,  by  means  of  what  they  call 
Ingenerate.  For  if  the  Son  be  of  things  generate,  it 
follows,  that  He  too  came  to  be  from  nothing ;  and  if 
He  has  an  origin  of  being,  then  He  was  not  before  His 
generation ;  and  if  He  is  not  eternal,  there  was  once  when 
He  was  notg.  If  these  are  their  sentiments,  they  ought  §.  29. 
to  signify  their  heterodoxy  in  their  own  phrases,  and  not  to 
hide  their  perverseness  under  the  cloke  of  the  Ingenerate. 
But  instead  of  this,  the  evil-minded  men  are  busy  with  their 
craftiness  after  their  father,  the  devil ;  for  as  he  attempts  to 
deceive  in  the  guise  of  others,  so  these  have  broached  the 
term  Ingenerate,  that  they  might  pretend  to  speak  piously  of 

«£«  a-avra/v,  Orat.  ii.  leopard,  let  him  die  spots  and  all,"  &c. 

§.  28.      An   apparent   allusion   to   the  &c.  Orat.  28.  2. 

punishment  of  blasphemy  and  idolatry  5  The  Arians  argued  that  the  word 

under  the  Jewish  Law.  vid.  reference  to  Ingenerate  implied  generate  or  creature 

Ex.21, 11,  in page49,  note  p.  Thus,  e.g.  as  its  correlative,  and  therefore  indi- 

Nazianzen  :  "  While  I  go  up  the  mount  rectly  signified  Creator;    so  that  the 

with  good  heart,  that  I  may  become  Son  being  not  ingenerate,  was  not  the 

within  (he  cloud,  and  may  hold  converse  Creator.     Athan.  answers,  that  in  the 

with  God,  for  so  God  bids  ;    if  there  use  of  the  word,  whether  there  be  a  Son 

be  any  Aaron,  let  him  go  up  with  me  does  not  come  into  the  question.    AlTEKe  | 

and  stand  near.     And  if  there  be  any  idea  of  Father  and  Son  does  not  in- 

Nadab  or  Abiud,  or  of  the  elders,  let  elude  creation,  so  that  of  creator  and-  } 

him  go  up,  but  stand  far  off,  according  creature  does  not  include  generation  ^  j 

to  the  measure  of  his  purification.  .  .  .  and  it  would   be  as  illogical  to  infer 

But  if  any  one  is  an  evil  and  savage  that   there   are   no   creatures  because 

beast,  and  quite  incapable  of  science  there  is  a  Son,  as  that  there  is  no  Son 

and  theology ;    let  him  stand  off  still  because  there  are  creatures.     Or,  more 

further,  and  depart  from  the  mount;  or  closely,  as  a  thing   generate,   though 

he  will  be  stoned  and  crushed  ;  for  the  not  the  Father,  is  not  therefore  Son,  so 

wicked   shall   be   miserably  destroyed,  the  Son  though  not  Tngenerate  is  not 

For  as  stones  for  the  bestial  are  true  therefore  a  thing  generate,  vid.  p.  33X 

words   and   strong.      Whether   he   be  note  r. 

54  Ingenerate  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  Son  but  of  creature. 

NicEN.God,  yet  might  cherish  a  concealed  blasphemy  against  the 
— ^-  Lord,  and  under  this  covering  might  teach  it  to  others. 

3.  However,  on  the  detecting  of  this  sophism,  what  remains 
to  them  ?  "  We  have  found  another,"  say  the  evil-doers  ;  and 
then  proceed  to  add  to  what  they  have  said  already,  that 
Ingenerate  means  what  has  no  author  of  being,  but  stands 
itself  in  this  relation  to  things  generate.  Unthankful,  and 
in  truth  deaf  to  the  Scriptures !  who  do  every  thing,  and 
say  every  thing,  not  to  honour  God,  but  to  dishonour 
the  Son,  ignorant  that  he  who  dishonours  the  Son,  dis- 
honours the  Father.  For  first,  even  though  they  denote 
God  in  this  way,  still  the  Word  is  not  proved  to  be 
of  things  generated.  For  if  He  be  viewed  as  offspring  of  the 
substance  of  the  Father,  He  is  of  consequence  with  Him 
eternally.  For  this  name  of  offspring  does  not  detract  from 
the  nature  of  the  Word,  nor  does  Ingenerate  take  its  sense 
from  contrast  with  the  Son,  but  with  the  things  which  come 
to  be  through  the  Son ;  and  as  he  who  addresses  an 
architect,  and  calls  him  iramer  of  house  or  city,  does  not 
under  this  designation  allude  to  the  son  who  is  begotten  from 
him,  but  on  account  of  the  art  and  science  which  he  displays 
in  his  work,  calls  him  artificer,  signifying  thereby  that  he  is 
not  such  as  the  things  made  by  him,  and  while  he  knows  the 
nature  of  the  builder,  knows  also  that  he  whom  he  begets  is 
other  than  his  works ;  and  in  regard  to  his  son  calls  him 
father,  but  in  regard  to  his  works,  creator  and  maker ;  in  like 
manner  he  who  says  in  this  sense  that  God  is  ingenerate, 
names  Him  from  His  works,  signifying,  not  only  that  He  is 
not  generate,  but  that  He  is  maker  of  things  which  are  so ; 
yet  is  aware  withal  that  the  Word  is  other  than  the  things 

1  ftiH     generate,  and  alone  a  proper1  offspring  of  the  Father,  through 

whom  all  things  came  to  be  and  consist h. 

$.  30.       4.  In  like  manner,  when  the  Prophets  spoke  of  God  as  All- 
powerful,  they  did  not  so  name  Him,  as  if  the  Word  were 

2  CMC  T£V  included  in  that  All2 ;  (for  they  knew  that  the  Son  was  other  than 

things  generate,  and  Sovereign  over  them  Himself,  according 
to  His  likeness  to  the  Father ;)  but  because  He  is  Sovereign 
over  all  things  which  through  the  Son  He  has  made,  and 

*>  The  whole  of  this  passage  is  re-     particular  argument,  Basil  also,  contr. 
peated  in  Orat.  i.  33.  &c.  vid.  for  this     Eunom.  i.  16. 

As  'Lord  of  Hosts'  does  not  exclude  a  Son,  so  not  Ingenerate*  55 

has  given  the  authority  of  all  things  to  the  Son,  and  having  CHAP. 

given  it,  is  Himself  once  more  the  Lord  of  all  things  through  the - 

Word.  Again,  when  they  called  God,  Lord  of  the  powers *,  *  *•  e. 
they  said  not  this  as  if  the  Word  was  one  of  those  powers, 
but  because,  while  He  is  Father  of  the  Son,  He  is  Lord  of 
the  powers  which  through  the  Son  have  come  to  be.  For 
again,  the  Word  too,  as  being  in  the  Father,  is  Lord  of  them  all, 
and  Sovereign  over  all ;  for  all  things,  whatsoever  the  Father 
hath,  are  the  Son's.  This  then  being  the  force  of  such  titles, 
in  like  manner  let  a  man  call  God  ingenerate,  if  it  so  please 
him ;  not  however  as  if  the  Word  were  of  generate  things,  but 
because,  as  I  said  before,  God  not  only  is  not  generate,  but 
through  His  proper  Word  is  He  the  maker  of  things  which  are 
so.  For  though  the  Father  be  called  such,  still  the  Word  is  the 
Father's  Image  and  one  in  substance  with  Him ;  and  being 
His  Image,  He  must  be  distinct  from  things  generate,  and  from 
every  thing ;  for  whose  Image  He  is,  to  Him  hath  He  it  to  be 
proper2  and  to  be  like:  so  that  he  who  calls  the  Father  ingene-2T>j»  ka- 
rate and  almighty,  perceives  in  the  Ingenerate  and  the  Almighty,  r"Ta 
His  Word  and  His  Wisdom,  which  is  the  Son.  But  these 
wondrous  men,  and  prompt  for  irreligion,  hit  upon  the  term 
Ingenerate,  not  as  caring  for  God's  honour,  but  from  male- 
volence towards  the  Saviour;  for  if  they  had  regard  to 
honour  and  blessing,  it  rather  had  been  right  and  good  to 
acknowledge  and  to  call  God  Father,  than  to  give  Him 
this  name ;  for  in  calling  God  ingenerate,  they  are,  as  I  said 
before,  calling  Him  from  things  which  came  to  be,  and  as 
a  Maker  only,  that  so  they  may  imply  the  Word  to  be  a  work 
after  their  own  pleasure ;  but  he  who  calls  God  Father,  in 
Him  withal  signifies  His  Son  also,  and  cannot  fail  to  know 
that,  whereas  there  is  a  Son,  through  this  Son  all  things  that 
came  to  be  were  created. 

5.  Therefore  it  will  be  much  more  accurate  to  denote  God§.  31. 
from  the  Son  and  to  call  Him  Father,  than  to  name  Him 
and  call  Him  Ingenerate  from  His  works  only ;  for  the  latter 
term  refers  to  the  works  that  have  come  to  be  at  the  will  of 
God  through  the  Word,  but  the  name  of  Father  points  out 
the  proper  offspring  from  His  substance.  And  whereas  the 
Word  surpasses  things  generate,  by  so  much  and  more  also 
doth  calling  God  Father  surpass  the  calling  Him  Ingenerate ; 

5fi  Father,  not  Ingenerate,  the  Scripture  term. 

NIC  EN.  for  the  latter  is  unscriptural  and  suspicious,  as  it  has  various 
—  senses ;   but  the  former  is  simple  and  scriptural,  and  more 
accurate,  and  alone  implies  the  Son.     And  "  Ingenerate"  is 
a  word  of  the  Greets  who  know  not  the  Son :  but  "  Father" 
has  been  acknowledged  and  vouchsafed  by  our  Lord ;  for  He, 
Johni4,  knowing  Himself  whose  Son  He  was,  said,  I  in  the  Father 
Johnio  ai*d  1ke  Father  in  Me;  and,  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath 
30.        seen  the  Father;  and,  /  and  the  Father  are  one;    but  no 
where  is  He  found  to  call  the  Father  Ingenerate.     Moreover, 
when  He  teaches  us  to  pray,  He  says  not,  "  When  ye  pray, 
Mat.  6,  say,  O  God  Ingenerate,"  but  rather,  When  ye  pray,  say,  Our 
Father,  which  art  in  heaven.     And  it  was  His  Will,  that  the 
Summary  of  our  faith  should  have  the  same  bearing.     For 
He  has  bid  us  be  baptized,  not  in  the  name  of  Ingenerate 
and  generate,  not  into  the  name  of  uncreate  and  creature,  but 
into  the  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost';   for  witli 
such  an   nitiation  we  too  are  made  sons  verily k,  and  using  the 


1  And  so  St.  Basil,  "  Our  faith  was 
not  in  Framer  and  Work,  but  in  Father 
and  Son  were  we  sealed  through  the 
grace  in  baptism."  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  22. 
And  a  somewhat  similar  passage  occurs 
Orat.  ii.  §.  41. 

k  \}\Qir(Hov(ji.tQtt.  K,Xvi6uf.  This  strong 
term  "  truly"  or  "  verily"  seems  taken 
from  such  passages  as  speak  of  the 
"  grace  and  truth''  of  the  Gospel,  John 
i.  12 — 17.  Again  St.  Basil  says,  that 
we  are  sons,  *wg/wf,  "  properly,"  and 
f^uTUi  "  primarily,''  in  opposition  to 
r£oirixus,  "figuratively," contr.  Ennom. 
ii.  -26.  St.  Cyril  too  says,  that  we  are 
sons  "  nfjturalK  "$tiftx£s  as  well  as  xara, 
%d£iv,  vid.  Suicer  Thesaur.  v.  vio's,  i.  3. 
Of  these  words,  a.\wfu>g  Qvo-ixa; ,  *ogittf: 
and  vf&reof,  the  first  two  are  commonly 
reserved  for  our  Lord  ;  e.  g.  TOV  <iX9i0eSs 

way,  Orat.  ii.  $.  37.  n/u,tts  i/iei,  CVK,  us 
ixtTvos  Qvffti  xut  «X>j^£/a,  iii.  §.  li>. 
Hilary  seems  to  deny  us  the  title  of 
"proper"  sons;  de  Trin.  xii.  15;  but 
his  "  proprium"  is  a  translation  of  }%ov, 
not  xvgius.  And  when  Justin  says  of 
Christ,  o  fiovos  Xfyt'/usvos  »Vfutf  vto{, 
Apol.  ii.  0.  x'jeius  seems  to  be  used 
in  reference  to  the  word  xu^io;  Lord, 
which  he  has  just  been  using,  xv^iobo- 
yilv,  being  sometimes  used  by  him  as 
others  in  the  of  ''  naming  as 
Lord,"  like  fioXoyiTv.  vid.  Tryph.  56. 

There  is  a  passage  in  Justin's  ad 
Greec.  21.  where  he  (or  the  writer) 
when  speaking  of  \yu  tlfti  o  uv,  uses 
the  word  in  the  same  ambiguous  sense ; 
oiiSiv  ya.^  ovofAK  iri  6itv  *tf£l»3(.aytiftiu 
^uvctrcV)  21  ;  as  if  xu^/aj,  the  Lord, 
by  which  "  I  am"  is  translated, 
were  a  sort  of  symbol  of  that  proper 
name  of  God  which  cannot  be  given. 
But  to  return ;  the  true  doctrine 
then  is,  that,  whereas  there  is  a  pri- 
mary and  secondary  sense  in  which  the 
word  Son  is  used,  primary  when  it  has 
its  formal  meaning  of  continuation 
of  nature,  and  secondary  when  it  is 
used  nominally,  or  for  an  external 
resemblance  to  the  first  meaning,  it 
is  applied  to  the  regenerate,  not  in 
the  secondary  sense,  but  in  the 
primary.  St.  Basil  and  St.  Gre- 
gory Nyssen  consider  Son  to  be  "  a 
term  of  relationship  according  to  na- 
ture," (vid.  supr.  p.  16,  note  k,)  also 
Basil  in  Psalm  28,  1.  The  actual 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  rege- 
nerate in  substance,  (vid.  Cyril.  Dial.  7. 
p.  638.)  constitutes  this  relationship  of 
nature ;  and  hence  after  the  words 
quoted  from  St.  Cyril  in  the  be- 
ginning of  this  note,  in  which  he 
says,  that  we  are  sons,  Qvtrixus,  he  pro- 
ceeds, "  naturally,  because  we  arc  in 
Him,  and  in  Him  alone."  vid.  Athan.'s 

\orcl  terms  of  heresy  met  by  neic  lerms  of  orthodoxy.    57 

mime  of  the  Father,  we  acknowledge  from  that  name,  tin-  Word  CHAP. 
in  the  Father.     But  if  He  wills  that  we  should  call  His  own    VII> 
Father  our  Father,  we  must  not  on  that  account  measure 
ourselves  with  the  Son  according  to  nature,  for  it  is  because 
of  the  Son  that  the  Father  is  so  called  by  us ;  for  since  the 
Word  bore  our  body  and  came  to  be l  in  us,  therefore  by  reason  J  y*yf«» 
of  the  Word  in  us,  is  God  called  our  Father.     For  the  Spirit" 
of  the  Word  in  us,  names   through  us  His  own  Father  as 
ours,  which  is  the  Apostle's  meaning  when  he  says,  God  Gal.  4, 
liatli   sent  forth  the   Spirit  of  His   Son  into  your  hearts, 
crying,  Abba,  Father. 

6.  But  perhaps  being  refuted  as  touching  the  term  In  generate  §.  32. 
also,  they  will  say,  according  to  their  evil  nature,  "  It  behoved, 
as  regards  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  also,, to  state 
from  the  Scriptures2  what  is  there  written  of  Him,  and  not  to'JsuPr-P- 
introduce  unscriptural  expressions."  Yes,  it  behoved,  say  I 
too  ;  for  the  tokens  of  truth  are  more  exact  as  drawn  from 
Scripture,  than  from  other  sources1;  but  the  ill  disposition 
and  the  versatile  and  crafty  irreligion  of  the  Eusebians,  com- 
pelled the  Bishops,  as  I  said  before,  to  publish  more  dis- 
tinctly the  terms  which  overthrow  their  irreligion ;  and  what 
the  Council  did  write  has  already  been  shewn  to  have  an 
orthodox  sense,  while  the  Arians  have  been  shewn  to  be 
corrupt  in  their  expressions,  and  evil  in  their  dispositions.- 

words   which   follow   in    the    text    at  on  it,  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 

the  end  of  §.  31.     And   hence  Nys-  fulness  of  the  Christian  privileges,  vid. 

sen   lays  down,   as   a   received   truth,  supr.  p.  32.  note  q. 

that  "  to  none  does  the  term  '  proper,'  1  "  The  holy  and  inspired  Scriptures 

xupurarev,  apply,  but  to  one  in  whom  are    sufficient    of    themselves   for   the 

the  name  responds  with  truth  to  the  preaching  of  the  truth ;   yet  there  are 

nature,"    contr.    Eunom.    iii.    p.    123.  also    many    treatises    of    our    blessed 

And  he  also  implies,  p.  117,  the  inti-  teachers   composed  for  this   purpose." 

mate   association  of  our  sonship  with  contr.  Gent.  init.     ll  For  studying  and 

Christ's,    when    he   connects   together  mastering  the  Scriptures,  there  is  need 

regeneration  with   our  Lord's  eternal  of  a  good  life  and  a   pure  soul,   and 

generation,  neither   being   S/a    vutiovs,  virtue  according  to  Christ,"  Incarn.  57. 

or,  of  the  will  of  the  flesh.     If  it  be  u  Since  divine  Scriptures  is  more  suf- 

asked,  what  the  distinctive  words  are  ficient  than  any  thing  else,  I  recom- 

which  are  incommunicably  the  Son's,  mend  persons  who  wish  to  know  fully 

since  so  much  is  man's,  it  is  obvious  concerning  these  things,"  (the  doctrine 

to  answer,  fttos  via?  and  powyttv;,  which  of  the  blessed  Trinity,)  "  to  read  the 

are  in  Scripture,  and  the  symbols  "  of  divine  oracles,"  ad  Ep.  JEg.  4.    "  The 

the  substance, "and  "one  in  substance,"  Scriptures  are  sufficient  for  teaching; 

of  the  Council ;  and  this  is  the  value  of  but  it  is  good  for  us  to  exhort  each 

the  Council's  phrases,  that,  while  they  other  in  the  faith    and  to  refresh  each 

guard    the   Son's   divinity,   they   allow  other  with  discourses."  Vit.  S.  Ant.  16. 

full  scope,  without  risk  of  entrenching  And  passim  in  Athart. 

58  Conclusion. 

NicEN.The  term  Ingenerate,  having  its  own  sense,  and  admitting  of 
—  a  religious  use,  they  nevertheless,  according  to  their  own  idea, 
and  as  they  will,  use  for  the  dishonour  of  the  Saviour,  all  for 
the  sake  of  contentiously  maintaining,  like  giants  m,  their  fight 
with  God.  But  as  they  did  not  escape  condemnation  when 
they  adduced  these  former  phrases,  so  when  they  misconceive 
of  the  Ingenerate  which  in  itself  admits  of  being  usedf/welJL 
and  religiously,  they  were  detected,  being  disgraced  before 
all,  and  their  heresy  every  where  proscribed. 

7.  This  then,  as  I  could,  have  I  related,  by  way  of  explain- 
ing what  was  formerly  done  in  the  Council ;  but  I  know  that 
the  contentious  among  Christ's  foes  will  not  be  disposed  to 
change  even  after  hearing  this,  but  will  ever  search  about 
for  other  pretences,  and  for  others  again  after  those.  For 

Jer.  13,  as  the  Prophet  speaks,  If  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or 
the  leopard  his  spots,  then  will  they  be  willing  to  think 
religiously,  who  have  been  instructed  in  irreligion.  Thou 
however,  Beloved,  on  receiving  this,  read  it  by  thyself;  and 
if  thou  approvest  of  it,  read  it  also  to  the  brethren  who 
happen  to  be  present,  that  they  too  on  hearing  it,  may 
welcome  the  Council's  zeal  for  the  truth,  and  the  exactness 
of  its  sense;  and  may  condemn  that  of  Christ's  foes,  the 
Arians,  and  the  futile  pretences,  which  for  the  sake  of  their 
irreligious  heresy  they  have  been  at  the  pains  to  frame  for 
each  other;  because  to  God  and  the  Father  is  due  the 
glory,  honour,  and  worship  with  His  co-existent  Son  and 
Word,  together  with  the  All-holy  and  Life-giving  Spirit,  now 
and  unto  endless  ages  of  ages.  Amen. 

m  And  so^Orat.  ii.  $.  32.  xara,  revs  ascendancy.     Also  Socr.  v.  10.  p.  268. 

ftvftuopirous  yiyavretf.    And  so  Nazian-  d.     Sometimes  the  Scripture  giants  are 

zen,  Orat.  43.  26.  speaking  of  the  dis-  spoken   of,    sometimes  the  mythologi- 

orderly    Bishops     during    the     Arian  cal. 




1.  WHAT  was  transacted  concerning  ecclesiastical  faith 

the  Great  Council  assembled  at  Nica?a,  you  have  probably    PIX* 
learned,  Beloved,  from  other  sources,  rumour   being  wont   *' 
to  precede  the   accurate  account  of  what   is  doing.      But 
lest  in  such  reports  the  circumstances  of  the  case  have  been 
misrepresented,  we  have   been  obliged  to  transmit  to  you, 
first,  the  formula  of  faith  presented  by  ourselves,  and  next, 
the  second,  which  the  Fathers  put  forth  with  some  additions 
to  our  words.     Our  own  paper  then,  which  was  read  in  the 
presence  of  our  most  pious  b  Emperor,  and  declared  to  be 
good  and  unexceptionable,  ran  thus  :  — 

2.  As  we  have  received  from  the  Bishops  who  preceded,  us  and    §.2. 
in  our  first  catechisings,  and  when  we  received  the  Holy  Laver, 

•  This  Letter  is  also  found  in  Socr.  to  the  brilliancy  of  the  imperial  purple. 

Hist.  i.  8.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  Gelas.  Hist.  He  confesses,  however,  he  did  not  sit 

Nic.  ii.  34.  p.  442.  Niceph.  Hist.  viii.  down  until  the  Bishops  bade  him. 

22.  Again  at  the  same  Council,  "  with 

b  And  so  infr.  "  most  pious,"  §.  4.  pleasant  eyes  looking  serenity  itself  into 
"  most  wise  and  most  religious,"  ibid,  them  all,  collecting  himself,  and  in  a 
"  most  religious,"  §.  8.  §.  10.  Euse-  quiet  and  gentle  voice"  he  made  an 
bius  observes  in  his  Vit.  Const,  the  oration  to  the  Fathers  upon  peace, 
same  tone  concerning  Constantine,  and  Constantine  had  been  an  instrument  in 
assigns  to  him  the  same  office  in  deter-  conferring  such  vast  benefits,  humanly 
mining  the  faith  (being  as  yet  un-  speaking,  on  the  Christian  body,  that  it 
baptized).  E.  g.  "  When  there  were  dif-  is  not  wonderful  that  other  writers  of  the 
ferences  between  persons  of  different  day  besides  Eusebius  should  praise  him. 
countries,  as  if  some  common  bishop  Hilary  speaks  of  him  as  "  of  sacred 
appointed  by  God,  he  convened  Coun-  memory,"  Fragm.  5.  init.  Athanasius 
cils  of  God's  ministers;  and  not  dis-  calls  him  "  most  pious,"  Apol.  contr. 
daining  to  be  present  and  to  sit  amid  Arian.  9.  "  of  blessed  memory,"  ad  Ep. 
their  conferences,"  &c.  i.  44.  When  JEg.  18.  19.  Epiphanius  a  most  re- 
he  came  into  the  Nicene  Council,  "  it  ligious  and  of  ever-blessed  memory," 
was,"  says  Eusebius,  "  as  some  hea-  Hser.  70.  9.  Posterity,  as  was  na- 
venly  Angel  of  God,"  iii.  10.  alluding  tural,  was  still  more  grateful. 

6*0  Letter  of  Ensebius  of  Ccesarea 

NicEN.and  as  we  have  learned  from  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  as  we 
DEF.   believed  and  taught  in  the  presbytery,  and  in  the  Episcopate  itself, 
so  believing  also  at  the  time  present,  we  report  to  you  our  faith, 
and  it  is  this  ° : — 

§.3.        We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Maker  of 
all  things  visible  and  invisible. 

And  in  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Word  of  God,  God  from 
God,  Light  from  Light,  Life  from  Life,  Son  Only-begotten, 
first-born  of  every  creature,  before  all  the  ages,  begotten  from 
the  Father,  by  whom  also  all  things  were  made ;  who  for  our 
salvation  was  made  flesh,  and  lived  among  men,  and  suffered, 
and  rose  again  the  third  day,  and  ascended  to  the  Father,  and 
will  come  again  in  glory  to  judge  quick  and  dead. 

And  we  believe  also  in  One  Holy  Ghost;  believing  each  of 
These  to  be  and  to  exist,  the  Father  truly  Father,  and  the  Son 
truly  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  truly  Holy  Ghost,  as  also  our 

Mat. 28,  Lord,  sending  forth  His  disciples  for  the  preaching,  said,  Go, 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Concerning  whom  we  con- 
fidently affirm  that  so  we  hold,  and  so  we  think,  and  so  we  have 
held  aforetime,  and  we  maintain  this  faith  unto  the  death,  anathe- 
matizing every  godless  heresy.  That  this  we  have  ever  thought 
from  our  heart  and  soul,  from  the  time  we  recollect  ourselves,  and 
now  think  and  say  in  truth,  before  God  Almighty  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  do  we  witness,  being  able  by  proofs  to  shew  and  to 
convince  you,  that,  even  in  times  past,  such  has  been  our  belief 
and  preaching. 

§•4.       3.  On  this  faith  being  publicly  put  forth  by  us,  no  room  for 

c  "  The  Children  of  the  Church  have  suing  from    Apostolical   teaching   and 

received  from  their  holy  Fathers,  that  the   Fathers'  tradition,  and   confirmed 

is,  the  holy  Apostles,  to  guard  the  faith;  by    New    and    Old    Testament."    ad 

and  withal  to  deliver  and  preach  it  to  Adelph.  6.   init.     Cyril   Hier.   too   as 

their  own  children Cease  not,  faith-  "declared   by   the    Church   and   esta- 

ful  and  orthodox  men,  thus  to  speak,  blished  from  all  Scripture."  Cat.  v.  12. 

and  to  teach  the  like  from  the  divine  "  Let  us  guard  with  vigilance  what  we 

Scriptures,  and  to  walk,  and  to  cate-  have  received What  then  have  we 

chise,  to  the  confirmation  of  yourselves  received  from  the  Swiptures  but  alto- 

and  those  who  hear  you;  namely,  that  gether  this?  that  God  made  the  world 

holy  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  by  the  Word,"  &c.  &c.   Procl.  ad  Ar- 

the  holy  and  only  Virgin  of  God  re-  men.  p.  612.      "  That  God,  the  Word, 

ceived  its  custody  from  the  holy  Apostles  after  the  union  remained  such  as  He 

of  the  Lord;   and  thus,  in  the  case  of  was,  &c.  so  clearly  hath  divine  Scrip- 

each    of   those    who    are   under   cate-  ture,  and  moreover  the  doctors  of  the 

chining,  who  are  to  approach  the  Holy  Churches,  and  the  lights  of  the  world 

I. aver,   ye    ought   not  on'y  to   preach  taught    us."    Theodor.    Dial.   3.    init. 

faith  to  your  children  in  the  Lord,  but  "  That  it  is  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers 

also  to  teach  them  expressly,  as  your  is  not  the  whole  of  our  case ;  for  they 

common  mother  teaches,  to  say:  '  We  too  followed  the  meaning  of  Scripture, 

believe    in    One    God,'"    &c.    Epiph.  starting   from   the   testimonies,   which 

Ancpr.  119  fin.  who  thereupon  proceeds  just  now  we  laid  before  you  from  Scrip- 

to  give  at  length  the  Niceno-Constan-  ture."  Basil  de  Sp.  $.  It),  vid.  also  a  re- 

tinopohtan    Creed.      And    so    Athan.  markable  passage  in  de  Synod.  §.  6.  fin. 

speaks  of  the  orthodox  faith,  as  "  is-  infra. 

to  the  people  of  Ids  Diocese.  61 

contradiction  appeared;  but  our  most  pious  Emperor,  before APPEN 
any  one  else,  testified  that  it  comprised  most  orthodox  state-  PIX> 
ments.  He  confessed  moreover  that  such  were  his  own 
Sentiments,  and  he  advised  all  present  to  agree  to  it,  and  to 
subscribe  its  articles  and  to  assent  to  them,  with  the  insertion 
of  the  single  word,  One  in  substance,  which  moreover  he 
interpreted  as  not  in  the  sense  of  the  affections  of  bodies, 
nor  as  if  the  Son  subsisted  from  the  Father,  in  the  way  of 
division,  or  any  severance ;  for  that  the  immaterial,  and 
intellectual,  and  incorporeal  nature  could  not  be  the  subject 
of  any  corporeal  affection,  but  that  it  became  us  to  conceive 
of  such  things  in  a  divine  and  ineffable  manner.  And  such 
were  the  theological  remarks  of  our  most  wise  and  most 
religious  Emperor;  but  they,  with  a  view  to  the  addition  of 
One  in  substance,  drew  up  the  following  formula : — 

4.   The  Faith  dictated  in  the  Council. 

"  We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  all 
things  visible  and  invisible  : — 

"  And  in  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of 
the  Father,  Only-begotten,  that  is,  from  the  Substance  of  the 
Father ;  God  from  God,  Light  from  Light,  Very  God  from  Very 
God,  begotten  not  made,  One  in  substance  with  the  Father,  by 
whom  all  things  were  made,  both  things  in  heaven  and  things  in 
earth;  who  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation  came  down  and 
was  made  flesh,  was  made  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third 
day,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  cometh  to  judge  quick  and  dead. 

"  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  But  those  who  say,  '  Once  He  was  not/  and  '  Before  His 
generation  He  was  not/  and  '  He  came  to  be  from  nothing/  or 
those  who  pretend  that  the  Son  of  God  is  '  Of  other  subsistence  or 
substance d/  or  '  created,'  or  '  alterable/  or  e  mutable/  the  Catholic 
Church  anathematizes." 

5.  On   their   dictating   this    formula,    we    did    not    let    it   §.5. 
pass  without  inquiry  in  what  sense  they  introduced  "  of  the 
substance  of  the  Father,"  and  "  one  in  substance  with  the 
Father."    Accordingly  questions  and  explanations  took  place, 

d  The   only   clauses    of    the    Creed  the  former  shall  be  reserved  for  a  later 

which  admit  of  any  question  in  their  part  of  the  volume;  the  latter  is  treated 

explanation,    are    the   "He   was    not  of  in  a  note  at  the  end  of  this  Treatise  ; 

before  His  generation,"  and  "  of  other  infr.  p.  60. 
subsistence   or   substance."      Of  these 

(j2  Letter  of  Eusebius  of  C&sarea 

NICEN.  and  the  meaning  of  the  words  underwent  the  scrutiny  of 
PEF-  reason.  And  they  professed,  that  the  phrase  "  of  the  sub- 
stance" was  indicative  of  the  Son's  being  indeed  from  the 
Father,  yet  without  being  as  if  a  part  of  Him.  And  with 
this  understanding  we  thought  good  to  assent  to  the  sense  of 
such  religious  doctrine,  teaching,  as  it  did,  that  the  Son  was 
from  the  Father,  not  however  a  part  of  His  substance6.  On 
this  account  we  assented  to  the  sense  ourselves,  without 
declining  even  the  term  "  One  in  substance,"  peace  being 
the  object  which  we  set  before  us,  and  stedfastness  in  the 
orthodox  view. 

§.6.  6.  In  the  same  way  we  also  admitted  "  begotten,  not 
made ;"  since  the  Council  alleged  that  "  made"  was  an  ap- 
pellative common  to  the  other  creatures  which  came  to  be 
through  the  Son,  to  whom  the  Son  had  no  likeness.  Where- 
fore, said  they,  He  was  not  a  work  resembling  the  things 
which  through  Him  came  to  bef,  but  was  of  a  substance 

e  Eusebius  does  not  commit  himself 
to  any  positive  sense  in  which  the 
formula  "  of  the  substance"  is  to  be 
interpreted,  but  only  says  what  it  docs 
not  mean.  His  comment  on  it  is  "  of 
the  Father,  but  not  as  a  part;"  where, 
what  is  not  negative,  instead  of  being 
an  explanation,  is  but  a  recurrence  to 
the  original  words  of  Scripture,  of 
which  l|  olffias  itself  is  the  explanation ; 
a  curious  inversion.  Indeed  it  is  very 
doubtful  whether  he  admitted  the  tg 
ovffiag  at  all.  He  says,  that  the  Son  is 
not  like  the  radiance  of  light  so  far  as 
this,  that  the  radiance  is  an  inseparable 
accident  of  substance,  whereas  the  Son 
is  by  the  Father's  will,  XU,TK  yvujtw  xa.} 
<r£«a/££ov«i,Demostr.Ev.iv,3.  And  though 
he  insists  on  our  Lord  being  alone,  i» 
6iou,  yet  he  means  in  the  sense  which 
Athan.  refutes,  supr.  §.  7.  viz.  that  He 
alone  was  created  immediately  from 
God,  vid.  next  note  f.  It  is  true  that 
he  plainly  condemns  with  the  Nicene 
Creed  the  \\  OVK  ovrav  of  the  Arians, 
"  out  of  nothing,"  but  an  evasion  was 
at  hand  here  also ;  for  he  not  only  adds, 
according  to  Arian  custom, ''  as  others," 
(vid.  note  following,)  but  he  has  a  theory 
that  no  being  whatever  is  out  of  nothing, 
for  non-existence  cannot  be  the  cause 
of  existence.  God,  he  says,  "  proposed 
His  own  will  and  power  as  a  sort  of 

matter  and  substance  of  the  production 
and  constitution  of  the  universe,  so  that 
it  is  not  reasonably  said,  that  any 
thing  is  out  of  nothing.  For  what  is 
from  nothing  cannot  be  at  all.  How 
indeed  can  nothing  be  to  any  thing  a 
cause  of  being  ?  but  all  that  is,  takes 
its  being  from  One  who  only  is,  and 
was,  who  also  said, '  I  am  that  I  am.' " 
Demostr.  Ev.  iv.  1.  Again,  .speaking 
of  our  Lord,  "  He  who  was  from  no- 
thing would  not  truly  be  Son  of  God, 
as  neither  is  any  other  of  things  gene- 
rate" Eccl.  Theol.  i.  9.  fin. 

f  Eusebius  distinctly  asserts,  Dem. 
Ev.  iv,  2.  that  our  Lord  is  a  creature. 
"  This  offspring,"  he  says,  "  did  He 
first  produce  Himself  fiom  Himself  as 
a  foundation  of  those  things  which 
should  succeed,  the  perfect  handywork, 
$'/ifAtovt>'ytiftct,  of  the  Perfect,  and  the 
wise  structure,  a«^/T«xTo»^a,  of  the 
Wise,"  &c.  Accordingly  his  avowal 
in  the  text  is  but  the  ordinary  Arian 
evasion  of  "an  offspring,  not  as  the 
offsprings."  E.  g.  "  It  is  not  without 
peril  to  say  recklessly  that  the  Son  is 
generate  out  of  nothing  similarly  to  the 
other  generates"  Dem.  Ev.  v.  1.  vid. 
also  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  9.  iii.  2.  And  he 
considers  our  Lord  the  only  Son  by  a 
div'ne  provision  similar  to  that  by  which 
there  is  only  one  sun  in  the  firmament, 

to  the  people  of  his  Diocese. 


which  is  too  high  for  the    level   of   any  work1,  and  which  APPEN- 
the  Divine  oracles  teach  to  have  been  generated  from  the    DT/X> 
Father8,  the  mode  of  generation  being  inscrutable  and  in- 
calculable to  every  generated  nature. 

7.  And  so  too  on  examination  there  are  grounds  for  saying,   §.  7. 
that  the  Son  is  "  one  in  substance"  with  the  Father ;  not  in 
the  way  of  bodies,  nor  like  mortal  beings,  for  He  is  not  such 
by  division  of  substance,  or  by  severance 2, 110  nor  by  any 2  ***' 
affection3,  or  alteration,  or  changing  of  the  Father's  substance 
and  power h,  (since  from   all   such  the  ingenerate  nature  of 

as  a  centre  of  light  and  heat.  "  Such 
an  Only-begotten  Son,  the  excellent 
artificer  of  His  will  and  operator,  did 
the  supreme  God  and  Father  of  that 
operator  Himself  first  of  all  beget, 
through  Him  and  in  Him  giving  sub- 
sistence to  the  operative  words  (ideas 
or  causes)  of  things  which  were  to  be, 
and  casting  in  Him  the  seeds  of  the 
constitution  and  governance  of  the  uni- 
verse ; . .  .Therefore  the  Father  being 
one,  it  behoved  the  Son  to  be  one  also ; 
but  should  any  one  object  that  He  con- 
stituted not  more,  it  is  fitting  for  such 
a  one  to  complain  that  He  constituted 
not  more  suns,  and  moons,  and  worlds, 
and  ten  thousand  other  things."  Dem. 
Ev.  iv.  5.  fin.  vid.  also  iv.  6. 

8  Eusebius  does  not  say  that  our 
Lord  is  from  the  substance  of  the 
Father,  but  has  a  substance  from  the 
Father.  This  is  the  Semi-arian  doc- 
trine, which,  whether  confessing  the 
Son  from  the  substance  of  the  Father 
or  not,  implied  that  His  substance  was 
not  the  Father's  substance,  but  a 
second  substance.  The  same  doctrine 
is  found  in  the  Semi-arians  of  Ancyra, 
though  they  seem  to  have  confessed,  "  of 
the  substance."  And  this  is  one  object 
of  the  opoouffiot,  to  hinder  the  confession 
"  of  the  substance"  from  implying  a 
second  substance,  which  was  not  ob- 
viated or  was  even  encouraged  by  the 
ofAtiovffuv.  The  Council  of  Ancyra, 
quoting  the  text  "  As  the  Father  hath 
life  in  Himself,  so,"  &c.  says,  "  since 
the  life  which  is  in  the  Father  means 
substance,  and  the  life  of  the  Only- 
begotten  which  is  begotten  from  the 
Father  means  substance,  the  word  '  so' 
implies  a  likeness  of  substance  to  sub- 
stance." Hter.  73.  10  fin.  Hence 
Eusebius  does  not  scruple  to  speak  of 
u  two  substances,"  and  other  writers  of 

three  substances,  contr.  Marc.  i.  4.  p. 
25.  He  calls  our  Lord  "  a  second 
substance."  Dem.  Ev.  vi.  Prsef.  Prsep. 
Ev.  vii,  12.  p.  320.  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
a  third  substance,  ibid.  15.  p.  325.  This 
it  was  that  made  the  Latins  so  sus- 
picious of  three  hypostases,  because  the 
Semi-arians,  as  well  as  they,  understood 
vvrofreiffif  to  mean  substance.  Eusebius 
in  like  manner  calls  our  Lord  "  another 
God,"  "  a  second  God."  Dem.  Ev.  v. 
4.  p.  226.  v.  fin.  "  second  Lord."  ibid. 
3  init.  6  fin.  "  second  cause."  Dem. 
Ev.  v.  Prsef.  vid.  also  trtpov  1%ovfet 
TO  xetr'  oiitrietv  vvroxtif&tvov,  Dem.  Ev. 
v.  1.  p.  215.  Kttf  IKVTOV  ouffiupivos .  ibid, 
iv.  3.  And  so  'Irt^os  •ffct^a,  rbv 
Eccl.  Theol.  i.  20.  p.  90.  and 
%%&>v.  ibid,  and  guv  xet.)  vQitrrui  xai  rou 
vuT^of  v7fK/>%ut  txrof.  ibid.  Hence 
Athan.  insists  so  much,  as  in  this 
treatise,  on  our  Lord  not  being  external 
to  the  Father.  Once  admit  that  He 
is  in  the  Father,  and  we  may  call  the 
Father,  the  only  God,  for  He  is  in- 
cluded. And  so  again  as  to  the  In- 
generate, the  term  does  not  exclude  the 
Son,  for  He  is  generate  in  the  Ingene- 

h  This  was  the  point  on  which,  as 
we  have  partly  seen  already,  the  Semi- 
arians  made  their  principal  stand 
against  the  "  one  in  substance," 
though  they  also  objected  to  it  as 
being  of  a  Sabellian  character.  E.  g. 
Euseb.  Demonstr.  iv.  3.  p.  148.  d.  p. 
149.  a,  b.  v.  1.  p.  213—215.  contr. 
Marcell.  i.  4.  p.  20.  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  12. 
p.  73.  in  laud.  Const,  p.  525.  de  Fide  i. 
ap.  Sirmond.  torn.  i.  p.  7.  de  Fide  ii.  p. 
16.  and  apparently  his  de  Incorporali. 
And  so  the  Semi-arians  at  Ancyra, 
Epiph.  Hcer.  73.  11.  p.  858.  a,  b.  And 
so  Meletius,  ibid.  p.  878  fin.  and  Cyril 
Hier.  Catech.  vii,  5.  xi,  18.  though  of 

64  Letter  of  Eusebhix  of 

NicEN.tlie  Father  is  alien,)  but  because  "  one  in  substance  with  the 

T)  F  F 

— ^  Father"  suggests  that  the  Son  of  God  bears  no  resemblance 

to  the  generated  creatures,  but  that  to  His  Father  alone  who 
begat  Him  is  He  in  every  way  assimilated,  and  that  He 
is  not  of  any  other  subsistence  and  substance,  but  from  the 
Father1.  To  which  term  also,  thus  interpreted,  it  appeared 
well  to  assent;  since  we  were  aware  that  even  among  the 
ancients,  some  learned  and  illustrious  Bishops  and  writers k 
have  used  the  term  '*  one  in  substance,"  in  their  theological 
teaching  concerning  the  Father  and  Son. 

§.  8.  8.  So  much  then  be  said  concerning  the  faith  which  was 
published ;  to  which  all  of  us  assented,  not  without  inquiry, 
but  according  to  the  specified  senses,  mentioned  before  the 
most  religious  Emperor  himself,  and  justified  by  the  fore- 
mentioned  considerations.  And  as  to  the  anathematism 
published  by  them  at  the  end  of  the  Faith,  it  did  not  pain 
us,  because  it  forbade  to  use  words  not  in  Scripture,  from 
which  almost  all  the  confusion  and  disorder  of  the  Church 
have  come.  Since  then  no  divinely  inspired  Scripture  has 
used  the  phrases,  "  out  of  nothing,"  and  "  once  He  was  not," 
and  the  rest  which  follow,  there  appeared  no  ground  for 
using  or  teaching  them;  to  which  also  we  assented  as  a  good 
decision,  since  it  had  not  been  our  custom  hitherto  to  use 
these  terms. 

§.9.  9.  Moreover  to  anathematize  "  Before  His  generation  He 
was  not,"  did  not  seem  preposterous,  in  that  it  is  confessed 

course  Catholics  would  speak  as  strongly  confess  Him  also  the  true  God,  as  in  an 

on  this  point  as  their  opponents.  image,  and  that  possessed  ;  so  that  the 

1  Here  again  Eusebius  does  not  say  addition  of  '  only'  may  belong  to  the 

"from   the   Father's   substance,"  but  Father  alone  as  archetype  of  the  image 

"  not  from  other  substance,  but  from  tbe  As,  supposing  one  king  held  sway, 

Father."    According  to  note  e.  supr.  he  and  his  image  was  carried  about  into 

considered  the  will  of  God  a  certain  mat-  every  quarter,  no  one  in  his  right  mind 

ter  or  substance.  Montfaucon  in  loc.  and  would  say  that  those  who  held  sway 

Collect.  Nov.  Prsef  p.  xxvi.  translates  were  two,  but  one  wbo  was  honoured 

without  warrant  "  ex  Patris  hypostasi  through  His  image;  in  like  manner," 

et  substantial    As  to  the  Son's  perfect  &c.  de  Eccles.  Theol.  ii,  23.  vid.  ibid, 

likeness  to  the  Father  which  he  seems  7.  pp.  109.  111. 

here   to  grant,   it    has    been    already         k  Athanasius    in    like    manner,    ad 

shewn,  p.  35.  note  u,  how  the  admission  Afros.  6.  speaks  of  "  testimony  of  an- 

was   evaded.      The  likeness  was   but  cient  Bishops  about  130  years  since ;" 

a   likeness   after   its   own   kind,    as    a  and  in  de  Syn.  §.  43.  of  "  long  before" 

picture  is  of  the  original.     "  Though  the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  269.  viz. 

our  Saviour  Himself  teaches,"  he  says,  the  Dionvsii,  &c.  vid.  supra  p.  35.  note 

"  that  the  Father  is   the  <  only  true  t. 
God,'  still  let  me  not  be  backward  to 

to  the  people  of  his  diocese.  65 

by  all,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  before  the  generation  ac-AppEN- 
cording  to  the  flesh !.      Nay,   our  most  religious  Emperor    Plx' 
did  at  the  time  prove,  in  a  speech,  that  He  was  in  being  §•  10- 
even  according  to   His  divine   generation  which   is   before 
all  ages,  since  even  before   He  was   generated   in    energy, 
He  was  in  virtue"1  with  the  Father  ingenerately,  the  Father 
being  always  Father,  as  King  always,  and  Saviour  always, 
having  all  things  in  virtue,  and  being  always  in  the  same 
respects  and  in  the  same  way. 

10.  This  we  have  been  forced  to  transmit  to  you,  Beloved,  §•  11. 
as  making  clear  to  you  the  deliberation  of  our  inquiry  and 
assent,  and  how  reasonably  we  resisted  even  to  the  last 
minute  as  long  as  we  were  offended  at  statements  which 
differed  from  our  own,  but  received  without  contention  what 
no  longer  pained  us,  as  soon  as,  on  a  candid  examination  of 
the  sense  of  the  words,  they  appeared  to  us  to  coincide  with 
what  we  ourselves  have  professed  in  the  faith  which  we  have 
already  published. 

1  Socrates,  who  advocates  the  ortho- 
doxy of  Eusebius,  leaves  out  this  he- 
terodox paragraph  altogether.  Bull, 
however,  Defens.  F.  N.  iii.  9.  n.  3. 
thinks  it  an  interpolation.  Athanasius 
alludes  to  the  early  part  of  the  clause, 
supr.  p.  7.  and  ad  Syn.  §.  13.  where  he 
says,  that  Eusebius  implied  that  the 
Arians  denied  even  our  Lord's  existence 
before  His  incarnation.  As  to  Con- 
stantine,  he  seems  to  have  be^n 
used  on  these  occasions  by  the  court 
Bishops  who  were  his  instructors, 
and  who  made  him  the  organ  of  their 
own  heresy.  Upon  the  first  rise  of  the 
Arian  controversy  he  addressed  a  sort 
of  pastoral  letter  to  Alexander  and 
Arius,  telling  them  that  they  were 
disputing  about  a  question  of  words, 
and  recommending  them  to  drop  it  and 
live  together  peaceably.  Euseb.  vit.  C. 
ii.  69.  72. 

m  Theognis,  another  of  the  Nicene 
Arians,  says  the  same,  according  to  Phi- 
lostorgius ;  viz.  "  that  God  even  before 
He  begat  the  Son  was  a  Father,  as  having 
the  power,  luvapis.  of  begetting."  Hist, 
ii.  15.  Though  Bull  pronounces  such 
doctrine  to  be  heretical,  as  of  course  it  is, 
still  he  considers  that  it  expresses  what 
otherwise  stated  may  be  orthodox,  viz.  the 
doctrine  that  our  Lord  was  called  the 

Word  from  eternity,  and  the  Son  upon 
His  descent  to  create  the  worlds.  And 
he  acutely  and  ingeniously  interprets 
the  Arian  formula,  "  Before  His  gene- 
ration He  was  not,"  to  support  this 
view.  Another  opportunity  will  occur 
of  giving  an  opinion  upon  this  question; 
meanwhile,  the  parallel  on  which  the 
heretical  doctrine  is  supported  in  the 
text  is  answered  by  many  writers,  on 
the  ground  that  Father  and  Son  are 
words  of  nature,  but  Creator,  King, 
Saviour,  are  external,  or  what  may  be 
called  accidental  to  Him.  Thus  Atha- 
nasius observes,  that  Father  actually 
implies  Son,  but  Creator  only  the  power 
to  create,  as  expressing  a  $uvetf&is  •,  "  a 
maker  is  before  his  works,  but  he  who 
says  Father,  forthwith  in  Father  implies 
the  existence  of  the  Son."  Orat.  iii.  §. 
6.  vid.  Cyril  too,  Dial.  ii.  p.  459. 
Pseudo-Basil,  contr.  Eun.  iv.  1.  fin.  On 
the  other  hand  Origen  argues  the 
reverse  way,  that  since  God  is  eternally 
a  Father,  therefore  eternally  Creator 
also.  "  As  one  cannot  be  father  with- 
out a  son,  nor  lord  without  possession, 
so  neither  can  God  be  called  Allpower- 
ful,  without  subjects  of  His  power;" 
Periarch.  i.  2.  n.  10.  hence  he  argued 
for  the  eternity  of  matter. 

NOTE  on  page  61. 

On  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  e%  srepois  viroa-Toureaos  $  ouenaj  in 
the  Nicene  Anathema. 

NICEN.  Bishop  Bull  has  made  it  a  question,  whether  these  words  in  the 
Nicene  Creed  mean  the  same  thing,  or  are  to  be  considered  dis- 
tinct from  each  other,  advocating  himself  the  latter  opinion  against 
Petavius.  The  history  of  the  word  vvofretvtf  is  of  too  intricate  a 
character  to  enter  upon  here ;  but  a  few  words  may  be  in  place 
in  illustration  of  its  sense  as  it  occurs  in  the  Creed,  and  with 
reference  to  the  view  taken  of  it  by  the  great  divine,  who  has 
commented  on  it. 

Bishop  Bull,  as  I  understand  him,  (Defens.  F.  N.  ii.  9-  §'  11.) 
considers  that  two  distinct  ideas  are  intended  by  the  words  tvrlet 
and  vTroo-Tdo-K;,  in  the  clause  l|  Jrsgfltj  fcr«rri£0i*«  «  wrl*s ;  as  if  the 
Creed  condemned  those  who  said  that  the  Son  was  not  from  the 
Father's  substance,  and  those  also  who  said  that  He  was  not  from 
the  Father's  hypostasis  or  subsistence ;  as  if  a  man  might  hold  at 
least  one  of  the  two  without  holding  the  other.  And  in  matter  of 
fact,  he  does  profess  to  assign  two  parties  of  heretics,  who  denied 
this  or  that  proposition  respectively. 

Petavius,  on  the  other  hand,  (de  Trin.  iv.  1.)  considers  that  the 
word  vTroo-Totrig,  is  but  another  term  for  oaV/#,  and  that  not  two  but 
one  proposition  is  contained  in  the  clause  in  question ;  the  word 
i»7ro«rT*5-<s  not  being  publicly  recognised  in  its  present  meaning  till 
the  Council  of  Alexandria,  in  the  year  362.  Coustant.  (Epist. 
Pont.  Rom.  pp.  2?4.  290.  462.)  Tillemont,  (Memoires  S.  Denys. 
d'Alex.  §.  15.)  Huet,  (Origenian.  ii.  2.  n.  3.)  Thomassin,  (de 
Incarn.  iii.  1 .)  and  Morinus,  (de  Sacr.  Ordin.  ii.  6)  take  sub- 
stantially the  same  view;  while  Maranus  (Praef.  ad  S.  Basil.  §.  1. 
torn.  3.  ed.  Bened.)  Natalis  Alexander,  Hist.  (Saec.  I.  Diss.  22.  circ. 
fin.)  Burton,  (Testimonies  to  the  Trinity,  No.  71.)  and  the  President 
of  Magdalen,  (Reliqu.  Sacr.  vol.  iii.  p.  189-)  differ  from  Petavius, 
if  they  do  not  agree  with  Bull. 

Bull's  principal  argument  lies  in  the  strong  fact,  that  S.  Basil 
expressly  asserts,  that  the  Council  did  mean  the  two  terms  to  be 
distinct,  and  this  when  he  is  answering  the  Sabellians,  who 
grounded  their  assertion  that  there  was  but  one  V7ro<rr»r^j  on 
the  alleged  fact,  the  Council  had  used  wo-la,  and  v-voa-Teta-is  indif- 

Bull  refers  also  to  Anastasius,  Hodeg.  21.  (22.  p.  343.?)  who  says, 
that  the  Nicene  Fathers  defined  that  there  are  three  hypostases  or 
Persons  in  the  Holy  Trinity.  Petavius  considers  that  he  derived 
this  from  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  a  writer  of  no  great  authority;  but, 
as  the  passage  occurs  in  Anastasius,  they  are  the  words  of  Andrew 
of  Samosata.  But  what  is  more  important,  elsewhere  Anastasius 
quotes  a  passage  from  Amphilochius  to  something  of  the  same  effect. 

Note  on  the  word  Hypostasis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema.    67 

c.  10.  p.  164.  He  states  it  besides  himself,  c.  9-  p-  150.  and  c.  24.  NOTE. 
p.  364.  In  addition,,  Bull  quotes  passages  from  S.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  S.  Dionysius  of  Rome,  (vid.  above,  pp.  44 — 48. 
and  note  i.  p.  46.)  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  and  afterwards  Origen  ; 
in  all  of  which  three  hypostases  being  spoken  of,  whereas,  anti- 
quity early  or  late,  never  speaks  in  the  same  way  of  three  oua-lxi, 
it  is  plain  that  v7ro<rTct<rn  then  conveyed  an  idea  which  ovrU  did 
not.  To  these  may  be  added  a  passage  in  Athanasius,  in  Illud, 
Omnia,  &c.  §.  6. 

Bishop  Bull  adds  the  following  explanation  of  the  two  words  as 
they  occur  in  the  Creed  :  he  conceives  that  the  one  is  intended  to 
reach  the  Arians,  and  the  other  the  Semi-arians ;  that  the  Semi- 
arians  did  actually  make  a  distinction  between  ova-lot  and  vTrorTartf, 
admitting  in  a  certain  sense  that  the  Son  was  from  the  vTroa-i-ao-ts  of 
the  Father,  while  they  denied  that  He  was  from  His  ova-ia,. 
They  then  are  anathematized  in  the  words  e|  !rgg«f  ovo-w  ;  and,  as 
he  would  seem  to  mean,  the  Arians  in  the  l|  Irggatj  v7roo-Ta.<r&a$. 

Now  I  hope  it  will  not  be  considered  any  disrespect  to  so  great 
an  authority,  if  I  differ  from  this  view,  and  express  my  reasons 
for  doing  so. 

1.  First  then,  supposing  his  account  of  the  Semi-arian  doctrine 
ever  so  free  from  objection,  granting  that  they  denied  the  I|  ova-las, 
and  admitted  the  l|  wcndc-tots,  yet  who  are  they  who,  according  to 
his  view,  denied  the  g|  v7to<rToi<ri<a$,  or  said  that  the  Son  was  \\  iik^us 
vTToa-Teio-tas?   he  does  not  assign  any  parties,  though   he  implies 
the   Arians.     Yet   though,  as  is   notorious,  they   denied  the  !£ 
ova-tecs,  there  is  nothing  to  shew  that  they  or  any  other  party 
of  Arians  maintained  specifically   that  the  Son  was  not  of  the 
vTroo-Tetris,  or  subsistence  of  the  Father.     That  is,  the  hypothesis 
supported  by  this  eminent  divine,  does  not  answer  the  very  ques- 
tion which  it  raises.     It  professes  that  those  who  denied  the  !£ 
vTroffTeicnai;,  were  not  the  same  as  those  who  denied  the  !£  ovriotg ; 
yet  it  fails  to  tell  us  who  did  deny  the  e|  V7ro<noi<riaq}  in  a  sense 
distinct  from  l|  ova-ices. 

2.  Next,  his  only  proof  that  the  Semi-arians  did  hold  the  l|  VTTO- 
o-Tunas  as  distinct  from  the  \\  ov<rioc$,  lies  in  the  circumstance,  that  the 
three  (commonly  called)  Semi-arian  confessions  of  A.D.  341,  344, 
351,  known  as  Mark's  of  Arethusa,  the  Macrostiche,  and  the  first 
Sirmian,  anathematize  those  who  say  that   the    Son   is  e|  tr^as 
vyros-Tcio-iai;  K*\  p.*  Ix.  rov  dicv,  not  anathematizing  the  e|  !TS£<*$  ova-ices, 
which  he  infers  thence  was  their  own  belief.   Another  explanation 
of  this  passage  will  be  offered  presently ;  meanwhile,  it  is  well  to 
observe,  that  Hilary,  in  speaking  of  the  confession  of  Philippopolis 
which  was  taken  from  Mark's,  far  from  suspecting  that  the  clause 
involved  an  omission,  defends  it  on  the  ground  of  its  retaining  the 
Anathema,  de  Synod.  35.  thus  implying  that  e£  Irsgas  vxonctG-iaq  xcct  p* 
It  fov  6tov  was  equivalent  to  l|  ir£g«$  woo-Tcio-ias  %  oiW«$.    And  it  may 
be  added,  that  Athanasius  in  like  manner,  in  his  account  of  the 
Nicene  Council  above  translated,  (de  Decret.   §.  20.  fin.)  when 
repeating  its  anathema,  drops  the    e|  woa-rdo-fus  altogether,  and 
reads   TOV$   Jg   Asyovras    e|   OVK  onuv,  ,  .  .  .  Jj  a-c/»)^<*,  it  l|  kitQt&s   ovcrtec*;, 

civcc&tueni^ii  x..  i.  A. 


68    Note  on  the  word  Hypostasis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema. 

NICEN.  3.  Further,  Bull  gives  us  no  proof  whatever  that  the  Semi-arians 
PEF-  did  deny  the  !£  ov<r^  ;  while  it  is  very  clear,  if  it  is  right  to  contra- 
dict so  great  a  writer,  that  most  of  them  did  not  deny  it.  He  says 
that  it  is  "  certissimum"  that  the  heretics  who  wrote  the  three  con- 
fessions above  noticed,  that  is,  the  Semi-arians,  "  nunquam  fassos, 
nunquam  fassuros  fuisse  filium  l|  ovri*s,  e  substantia,  Patris  pro- 
genitum."  His  reason  for  not  offering  any  proof  for  this  naturally 
is,  that  Petavius,  with  whom  he  is  in  controversy,  maintains  it 
also,  and  he  makes  use  of  Petavius' s  admission  against  himself. 
Now  it  may  seem  bold  in  a  writer  of  this  day  to  differ  not  only  with 
Bull  but  with  Petavius ;  but  the  reason  for  doing  so  is  simple ;  it 
is  because  Athanasius  asserts  the  very  thing  which  Petavius  and 
Bull  deny,  and  Petavius  admits  that  he  does;  that  is,  he  allows  it  by 
implication  when  he  complains  that  Athanasius  had  not  got  to  the 
bottom  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Semi-arians,  and  thought  too  favour- 
ably of  them.  "  Horum  Semi-arianorum,  quorum  antesignanus 

fuit  Basilius  Ancyrae  episcopus,  prorsus  obscura  fuit  haeresis 

ut  ne  ipse  quidem  Athanasius  satis  illam  exploratam  habuerit."  de 
Trin.  i.  x.  §.  7. 

Now  S.  Athanasius's  words  are  most  distinct  and  express  j  "As 
to  those  who  receive  all  else  that  was  defined  at  Nicaea,  but  dis- 
pute about  the  '  One  in  substance'  only,  we  must  not  feel  as 
towards  enemies ....  for,  as  confessing  that  the  Son  is  from  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father  and  not  of  other  subsistence,  ««  T??  <>tW#$  r«y 
wfcTgoj  won,  x.<x.i  [th  g|  Ir'^otg  vTcotrToicriug  TO*  vlov,  .  . .  they  are  not  far 
from  receiving  the  phrase  '  One  in  substance*  also.  Such  is  Basil 
of  Ancyra,  in  what  he  has  written  about  the  faith.''  de  Syn. 
§.  41; — a  passage,  not  only  express  for  the  matter  in  hand,  but 
remarkable  too,  as  apparently  using  vTroa-rans  and  ova-U  as  sy- 
nonymous, which  is  the  main  point  which  Bull  denies.  What 
follows  in  Athanasius  is  equally  to  the  purpose:  he  urges  the 
Semi-arians  to  accept  the  cpctva-uv,  in  consistency,  because  they 
maintain  the  l\  ova-t'etf  and  the  ip**vr*i  would  not  sufficiently 
secure  it. 

Moreover  Hilary,  while  defending  the  Semi-arian  decrees  of 
Ancyra  or  Sirmium,  says  expressly,  that  according  to  them,  among 
other  truths,  "non  creatura  est  Filius  genitus,  sed  a  naturd  Patris 
indiscreta  substantia  est."  de  Syn.  2?. 

Petavius,  however,  in  the  passage  to  which  Bull  appeals,  refers 
in  proof  of  his  view  of  Semi-arianism,  to  those  Ancyrene  do- 
cuments, which  Epiphanius  has  preserved,  Haer.  73,  and  which 
he  considers  to  shew,  that  according  to  the  Semi-arians  the  Son 
was  not  \%  ova-las  TOV  w#Tg<?«.  He  says,  that  it  is  plain  from  their 
own  explanations  that  they  considered  our  Lord  to  be,  not  IK  T%$ 

ov<riots,  but  IK  T?«  opotaTVTCf  [[he  does  not  say  VTrwrda-iuq,  as  Bull 
wishes]]  TOV  TTfltTgaj  and  that,  w^yiicf,  yivwiitx.y,  which  was  one  of  the 
divine  Inqyueu,  as  creation,  t>  *T<S-T;XJJ,  was  another.  Yet  surely 
Epiphanius  does  not  bear  out  this  representation  better  than 
Athanasius;  since  the  Semi-arians,  whose  words  he  reports, 
speak  of  c<  viov  oftotov  KOC.I  X.OC.T  oiKrtctv  IK  TOV  Trdrfa,  p.  825.  b.  6>? 
*  0-otpt'et  TOU  o-otyov  viog,  ovytet  ovo-iotf.  p.  85".  C.  KXT'  ovyioty  viov  rov 
0lov  KCCI  TTflti^o;,  p,  851.  C.  l^ovcricf,  opov  x.xi  oixrlce.  vit,7£>$  povoyivovs  viov. 

Note  on  lite  word  Hypostasis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema.    69 

p.  858.  d.  besides  the  strong  word  yv»jV<o;,  ibid,  and  Athan.  de  NOTE. 
Syn.  §.41.  not  to  insist  on  other  of  their  statements. 

The  same  fact  is  brought  before  us  even  in  a  more  striking  way 
in  the  conference  at  Constantinople,  A.  D.  360,  before  Constantius, 
between  the  Anomoeans  and  Semi-arians,  where  the  latter,  ac- 
cording to  Theodoret,  shew  no  unwillingness  to  acknowledge 
even  the  opowe-ioy,  because  they  acknowledge  the  l|  ovriag.  When 
the  Anomoeans  wished  the  former  condemned,  Silvanus  of  Tarsus 
said,  "  If  God  the  Word  be  not  out  of  nothing,  nor  a  creature,  nor 
of  other  substance,  ovriot;,  therefore  is  He  one  in  substance,  o 

with  God  who  begot  Him,  as  God  from  God,  and  Light  from  Light, 
and  He  has  the  same  nature  with  His  Father."  Hist.  ii.  23.  Here 
again  it  is  observable,  as  in  the  passage  from  Athanasius  above, 
that,  while  apparently  reciting  the  Nicene  Anathema,  he  omits  l| 
irtgw;  vTroTTcirtas,  as  if  it  were  superfluous  to  mention  a  synonyme. 

At  the  same  time  there  certainly  is  reason  to  suspect  that  the 
Semi-arians  approximated  towards  orthodoxy  as  time  went  on  ; 
and  perhaps  it  is  hardly  fair  to  determine  what  they  held  at 
Nicaea  by  their  statements  at  Ancyra,  though  to  the  latter  Peta- 
vius  appeals.  Several  of  the  most  eminent  among  them,  as  Mele- 
tius,  Cyril,  and  Eusebius  of  Samosata  conformed  soon  after  ;  on 
the  other  hand  in  Eusebius,  who  is  their  representative  at  Nicaea, 
it  will  perhaps  be  difficult  to  find  a  clear  admission  of  the  !£  ov<rt*$. 
But  at  any  rate  he  does  not  maintain  the  l|  vTroo-Tcirws  ,  which  Bull's 
theory  requires. 

On  various  grounds  then,  because  the  Semi-arians  as  a  body  did 
not  deny  the  g|  6v<rict<;,  nor  confess  the  e|  vTroa-i  do-tug,  nor  the  Arians 
deny  it,  there  is  reason  for  declining  Bishop  Bull's  explanation 
of  these  words  as  they  occur  in  the  Creed  ;  and  now  let  us 
turn  to  the  consideration  of  the  authorities  on  which  that  ex- 
planation rests. 

As  to  Gelasius,  Bull  himself  does  not  insist  upon  his  testimony, 
and  Anastasius  is  too  late  to  be  of  authority.  The  passage  indeed 
which  he  quotes  from  Amphilochius  is  important,  but  as  he  was  a 
friend  of  St.  Basil,  perhaps  it  does  very  much  increase  the  weight 
of  St.  Basil's  more  distinct  and  detailed  testimony  to  the  same 
point,  and  no  one  can  say  that  that  weight  is  inconsiderable. 

Yet  there  is  evidence  the  other  way  which  overbalances  it. 
Bull,  who  complains  of  Petavius's  rejection  of  St.  Basil's  testi- 
mony concerning  a  Council  which  was  held  before  his  birth, 
cannot  maintain  his  own  explanation  of  its  Creed  without  rejecting 
Athanasius's  testimony  respecting  the  doctrine  of  his  contempo- 
raries, the  Semi-arians  ;  and  moreover  the  more  direct  evidence, 
as  we  shall  see,  of  the  Council  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  362,  S.  Jerome, 
Basil  of  Ancyra,  and  Socrates. 

First,  however,  no  better  comment  upon  the  sense  of  the  Coun- 
cil can  be  required  than  the  incidental  language  of  Athanasius  and 
Dthers,  who  in  a  foregoing  extract  exchanges  ovc-iet  for  vTroa-rcta-^ 
n  a  way  which  is  natural  only  on  the  supposition  that  he  used 
hem  as  synonymes.  Elsewhere,  as  we  have  seen,  he  omits  the 
word  $  virer7eie-teis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema,  while  Hilary  considers 
he  Anathema  sufficient  with  that  omission. 

70   Note  on  the  word  Hypostasis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema, 

NICEN.      In  like  manner  Hilary  expressly  translates  the  clause  in  the 

DBF.    Creed  by  ex  altera  substantiA  vel  essentia.  Fragm.  ii.  27-     And 

somewhat  in  the  same  way  Eusebius  says  in  his  letter,  e|  Irigae? 

T<VO£    VTTOO-TotyWS   Tt  KCtl   OVTIOt$. 

But  further,  Athanasius  says  expressly,  ad  Afros — "  Hypostasis 
is  substance,  ovo-ia,  and  means  nothing  else  than  simply  being, 
which  Jeremiah  calls  existence  when  he  says,"  &c.  §.4.  It  is 
true,  he  elsewhere  speaks  of  three  Hypostases,  but  this  only 
shews  that  he  attached  no  fixed  sense  to  the  word.  This 
is  just  what  I  would  maintain;  its  sense  must  be  determined 
by  the  context,  and,  whereas  it  always  stands  in  all  Catholic 
writers  for  the  Una  Res,  (as  the  4th  Lateran  speaks,)  which 
ova-let,  denotes,  when  Atbanasius  says,  '•'  three  hypostases,"  he 
takes  the  word  to  mean  ova-lot  in  that  particular  sense  in  which 
it  is  three,  and  when  he  makes  it  synonymous  with  ova-lx,  he 
uses  it  to  signify  Almighty  God  in  that  sense  in  which  He 
is  one. 

Leaving  Athanasius,  we  have  the  following  evidence  concerning 
the  history  of  the  word  vTroa-rota-ig.  St.  Jerome  says,  "  The  whole 
school  of  secular  learning  understanding  nothing  else  by  hypo- 
stasis  than  usia,  substance."  Ep.  xv.  4.  Where,  speaking  of  the 
Three  Hypostases  he  uses  the  strong  language,  "  If  you  desire  it, 
then  be  a  new  faith  framed  after  the  Nicene,  and  let  the  orthodox 
confess  in  terms  like  the  Arian." 

In  like  manner,  Basil  of  Ancyra,  George,  and  the  other  Semi- 
arians,  say  distinctly,  "  This  hypostasis  our  Fathers  called  sub- 
stance," ova-let.  Epiph.  Haer.  74.  12.  fin.;  in  accordance  with  which 
is  the  unauthorized  addition  to  the  Sardican  Epistle,  "  vTrorrarH, 
jjv  etvrot  ol  etl^Titcot  ovrjetv  ir(>o<rayo£Svov(ri."  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  6. 

If  it  be  said  that  Jerome  from  his  Roman  connection,  and  Basil 
and  George  as  Semi-arians,  would  be  led  by  their  respective 
theologies  for  distinct  reasons  thus  to  speak,  it  is  true,  and  may 
have  led  them  to  too  broad  a  statement  of  the  fact ;  but  then  on  the 
other  hand  it  was  in  accordance  also  with  the  theology  of  St.  Basil, 
so  strenuous  a  defender  of  the  formula  of  the  Three  Hypostases, 
to  suppose  that  the  Nicene  Fathers  meant  to  distinguish  viroa-Tccwf 
from  ova-lot,  in  their  anathema. 

Again,  Socrates  informs  us  that,  though  there  was  some  dispute 
about  hypostasis  at  Alexandria  shortly  before  the  Nicene  Council, 
yet  the  Council  itself  "devoted  not  a  word  to  the  question."  Hist, 
iii.  7.;  which  hardly  consists  with  its  having  intended  to  rule  that 
I|  irggg?  vKotrrcia-suq  was  distinct  from  i%  irgg*?  ova-lx/;. 

And  in  like  manner  the  Council  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  362,  in 
deciding  that  the  sense  of  Hypostasis  was  an  open  question,  not 
only  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  goes  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Nicene  Council  had  not  closed  it,  but  says  so  in 
words  again  and  again  in  its  Synodal  Letter.  If  the  Nicene 
Council  had  already  used  "  hypostasis"  in  its  present  sense,  what 
remained  to  Athanasius  at  Alexandria  but  to  submit  to  it? 

Indeed  the  history  of  this  Council  is  perhaps  the  strongest 
argument  against  the  supposed  discrimination  of  the  two  terms  by 
the  Council  of  Nicaea.  Bull  can  only  meet  it  by  considering  that 

Note  on  the  word  Hypostasis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema.    71 

an  innovation  upon  the  "  veterem  vocabuli  usum"  began  at  the  NOTE. 
date   of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  though  Socrates  mentions  the  ~~ 
dispute  as  existing  at  Alexandria  before  the  Nicene  Council,  Hist, 
iii.  4.  5.  while  the  supposititious  confession  of  Sardica  professes  to 
have  received  the  doctrine  of  the  one  hypostasis  by  tradition  as 

Nor  is  the  use  of  the  word  in  earlier  times  inconsistent  with 
these  testimonies;  though  it  occurs  so  seldom,  in  spite  of  its  being 
a  word  of  St.  Paul,  that  testimony  is  our  principal  evidence. 
Socrates's  remarks  deserve  to  be  quoted;  "  Those  among  the 
Greeks  who  have  treated  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  have  defined 
substance,  ova-tot,  in  many  ways,  but  they  had  made  no  mention  at  all 
of  hypostasis.  Irenaeus  the  Grammarian,  in  his  alphabetical  Atticist, 
even  calls  the  term  barbarous;  because  it  is  not  used  by  any  of  the 
ancients,  and  if  any  where  found,  it  does  not  mean  what  it  is  now 
taken  for.  Thus  in  the  Phoenix  of  Sophocles  it  means  an  e  am- 
bush ;'  but  in  Menander,  '  preserves/  as  if  one  were  to  call  the 
wine-lees  in  a  cask  f  hypostasis/  However  it  must  be  observed, 
that,  in  spite  of  the  old  philosophers  being  silent  about  the  term, 
the  more  modern  continually  use  it  for  substance,  «tW<*?."  Hist, 
iii.  7-  The  word  principally  occurs  in  Origen  among  Ante-Nicene 
writers,  and  he,  it  must  be  confessed,  uses  it,  as  far  as  the  context 
decides  its  sense,  to  mean  subsistence  or  person.  In  other  words,  it 
was  the  word  of  a  certain  school  in  the  Church,  which  afterwards 
was  accepted  by  the  Church ;  but  this  proves  nothing  about 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  used  at  Nicaea.  The  three  Hypo- 
stases  are  spoken  of  by  Origen,  his  pupil  Dionysius,  as  after- 
wards by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  (though  he  may  notwithstand- 
ing have  considered  hypostasis  synonymous  with  substance,)  and 
Athanasius ;  (Origen  in  Joan.  ii.  6.  Dionys.  ap.  Basil  de  Sp  S.  n.  72. 
Euseb.  ap.  Socr.i.  23.  Athan.  in  Illud  Omnia,  &c.  6.)  and  the  Two 
Hypostases  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  by  Origen,  Ammonius,  and 
Alexander,  (Origen  in  Cels.  viii.  2.  Ammon.  ap.  Caten.  in  Joan. 
x.  30.  Alex.  ap.  Theod.  i.  3.  p.  740.)  As  to  the  passage  in  which 
two  hypostases  are  spoken  of  in  Dionysius's  letter  to  Paul  of 
Samosata,  that  letter  certainly  is  not  genuine,  as  might  be  shewn 
on  a  fitting  occasion,  though  it  is  acknowledged  by  very  great 

I  confess  that  to  my  mind  there  is  an  antecedent  probability 
that  the  view  which  has  here  been  followed  is  correct  J  udging  by 
the  general  history  of  doctrine,  one  should  not  expect  that  the  formal 
ecclesiastical  meaning  of  the  word  should  have  obtained  every 
where  so  early.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  doctrines 
themselves  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  were  de- 
veloped, or,  to  speak  more  definitely,  that  the  propositions  containing 
them  were  acknowledged,  from  the  earliest  times ;  but  the  parti- 
cularterms  which  now  belongto  them  are  almost  uniformly  of  a  later 
date.  Ideas  were  brought  out,  but  technical  phrases  did  not  obtain. 
Not  that  these  phrases  did  not  exist,  but  either  not  as  technical,  or 
in  use  in  a  particular  School  or  Church,  or  with  a  particular  writer,  or 
as  «V«|  Agyaf«»«,  as  words  discussed,  nay  resisted,  perhap .3  used  by 
some  local  Council,  and  then  at  length  accepted  generally  from  their 

72   Note  on  the  word  Hypostasis  in  the  Nicene  Anathema. 

NIC  EN.  obvious  propriety.  Thus  the  words  of  the  Schools  pass  into  the 
PEF*  service  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Instead  then  of  the  word  vTrorTottm; 
being,  as  Maran  says,  received  in  the  East  "  summo  consensu," 
from  the  date  of  Noetus  or  at  least  Sabellius,  or  of  Bull's  opinion 
"  apud  Calholicos  Dionysii  aetate  ralum  el  fixum  illud  fuisse,  tres 
esse  in  divinis  hypostases,"  I  would  consider  that  the  present 
use  of  the  word  was  in  the  first  instance  Alexandrian,,  and  that 
it  was  little  more  than  Alexandrian  till  the  middle  of  the  4th 

Lastly,  it  comes  to  be  considered  how  the  two  words  are  to  be 
accounted   for   in  the  Creed,  if  they  have   not  distinct   senses. 
Constant  supposes  that  i|  ovriett  was  added  to  explain  ||  vx*rT*n*f} 
lest  the  latter  should  be  taken  in  a  Sabellian  sense.      On  which  we 
may  perhaps  remark  besides,  that  the  reason  why  viroFTotris  was 
selected  as  the  principal  term  was,  that  it  was  agreeable  to  the 
Westerns  as  well  as  admitted  by  the  Orientals.     Thus,  by  way  of 
contrast,  we  find  the  second  General  Council,  at  which  there  were  no 
Latins,  speaking  of  Three  Hypostases,  and  Pope  Damasus  and  the 
Roman  Council  speakinga  few  years  sooner  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  of 
the  same  hypostasis  and  usia  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Theod. 
Hist.  ii.  I?.    Many  things  go  to  make  this  probable.     For  instance, 
Constant  acutely  points  out,  though  Maran  and  the  President  of  Mag- 
dalen dissent,  that  this  probably  was  a  point  of  dispute  between 
the  two  Dionysii ;  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  asserting,  as  we  know 
he  did  assert,  Three  Hypostases,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  protesting 
in    reply    against  "  Three    partitive    Hypostases,"    as   involving 
tritheism,    and  his   namesake   rejoining,  "If  because  there  are 
Three  Hypostases,  any  say  that  they  are  partitive,  three  there 
are,  though  they  like  it  not."     Again,  the  influence  of  the  West 
shews  itself  in  the  language  of  Athanasius,  who,  contrary  to  the 
custom    of    his    Church,    of  Origen,    Dionysius,    and    his   own 
immediate  patron  and  master  Alexander,  so  varies  his  own  use  of 
the  word,  as  to   make  his  writings  almost  an  example   of  that 
freedom    which    he    vindicated   in    the    Council   of  Alexandria. 
Again,    when    Hosius   went   to    Alexandria   before  the    Nicene 
Council,  and  a  dispute  arose  with  reference  to  Sabellianism  about 
the  words  viroFretFtg  and  «w-/«,  what  is  this  too,  but  the  collision  of 
East  and  West  ?     It  should  be  remembered  moreover  that  Hosius 
presided  at  Nicaea,  a  Latin  in  an  Eastern  city  ;   and  again    at 
Sardica,  where,  though  the  decree  in  favour  of  the  One  Hypostasis 
was  not  passed,  it  seems  clear  from  the  history  that  he  was  resisting 
persons  with  whom  in  great  measure  he  agreed.      Further,  the 
same  consideration  accounts  for  the  omission  of  the  g|  ovrUs  from 
the  Confession  of  Mark  and  the  two  which  follow,  on  which  Bull 
relies  in  proof  that  the  Semi-arians  rejected  this  formula.     These 
three  Semi-arian  Creeds,  and  these  only,  were  addressed  to  the 
Latins,  and  therefore  their  compilers  naturally  select  that  synonyme 
which  was  most  pleasing  to  them,  as  the  means  of  securing  a 
hearing  ;  just  as  Athanasius  on  the  other  hand  in  his  de  Decretis, 
writing  to  the  Greeks,  omits  vjr«*-T«eVg»j,  and  writes 




CHAP.  I. 


Reason  why  two  Councils  were  called.  Inconsistency  and  folly  of  calling 
any ;  and  of  the  style  of  the  Arian  formularies ;  occasion  of  the  Nicene 
Council;  proceedings  at  Ariminum ;  Letter  of  the  Council  to  Constantius; 
its  decree.  Proceedings  at  Seleucia;  reflections  on  the  conduct  of  the 

1.  PERHAPS  news  has  reached  even  yourselves  concerning  CHAP. 
the  Council,  which  is  at  this  time  the  subject  of  general  con- 
versation; for  letters  both  from  the  Emperor  and  the  Prefects" 
were  circulated  far  and  wide  for  its  convocation.     However, 

you  take  that  interest  in  the  events  which  have  occurred, 
that  I  have  determined  upon  giving  you  an  account  of  what 
I  have  seen  myself b  or  have  ascertained,  which  may  save  you 
from  the  suspense  attendant  on  the  reports  of  others ;  and 
this  the  more,  because  there  are  parties  who  are  in  the  prac- 
tice of  misrepresenting  what  is  going  on. 

2.  At  Nicsea  then,  which  had  been  fixed  upon,  the  Council 
did  not  meet,  but  a  second  edict0  was  issued,  convening  the 

a  There  were  at  this  time  four  prse-  b  From  these  words  Tillemont  and 

torian  prefects,  who  divided  between  Gibbon  infer  that  Athanasius  was  pre- 

them   this  administration  of  the  Em-  sent  at  least  at  Seleucia,  but,  as  Mont- 

pire.  They  had  been  lately  made  merely  faucon  observes,  such  a  supposition  is 

civil  officers,  Constantine  having  sup-  not  required  by  the  words,  and  is  in 

pressed  the  celebrated  troops  which  they  itself  improbable. 

used  to  command.  At  Ariminum,  one  of  c  The  Council  was  originally  to  have 

them,  Taurus,  was  present,  and  was  been  held  at  Nicsea,  but  the  party  of 

the  instrument  of  the  Emperor  in  over-  Basil  did  not  like  a  second  meeting  in 

awing  the  Council.  the   same  place,  and  Nicomedia  was 

74     Circumstances  of  the  calling  of  the  Tivo  Councils. 

COUNC.  Western  Bishops  at  Ariminum  in  Italy,  and  the  Eastern  at 

AA™  Seleucia  the  Rugged,  as  it  is  called,  in  Isauria.     The  professed 

SELEU.  reason  of  such  a  meeting  was  to  treat  of  the  faith  touching  our 

Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  those  who  alleged  it,  were  Ursacius, 

Valensd,  and  one  Germinius6  from  Pannonia ;  and  from  Syria, 

Acacius,  EudoxiuV,  and  Patrophilus  of  Scythopolisg.     These 

men  who  had  always  been  of  the  Arian  party,  and  understood 

neither  how  they  believe  or  whereof  they  affirm,  and  were 

silently  deceiving  first  one  and  then  another,  and  scattering 

« supr.    the  second  sowing1  of  their  heresy,  influenced  some  persons  of 

note'k.    consequence,  and  the   Emperor   Constantius   among   them, 

*infr.     being  a  heretic2,  on  some  pretence  about  the  Faith,  to  call  a 

note  p.    Council ;  under  the  idea  that  they  should  be  able  to  put  into 

substituted.  The  greater  number  of 
Bishops  had  set  out,  when  an  earth- 
quake threw  the  city  into  ruins.  Nicaea 
was  then  substituted  again  at  Basil's 
wish,  Soz.  iv.  16.  but  it  was  considered 
too  near  the  seat  of  the  earthquake  to 
be  safe.  Then  the  Eusebian  or  Aca- 
cian  influence  prevailed,  and  the  Coun- 
cil was  divided  into  two ;  but  at  first 
Ancyra,  Basil's  see,  was  to  have  been 
one  of  them,  (where  a  celebrated  Coun- 
cil of  Semi-arians  actually  was  held 
at  the  time.)  Hil.  de  Syn.  8.  but  this 
was  changed  for  Seleucia.  A  delegacy 
of  Bishops  from  each  Province  was 
summoned  to  Nicomeilia ;  but  to 
Nicsea,  all  Bishops  whatever,  whose 
health  admitted  of  the  journey,  ac- 
cording to  Sozomen;  but  Hilary  says, 
only  one  or  two  from  each  province  of 
Gaul  were  summoned  to  Ariminum  ; 
he  himself  was  at  Seleucia,  under  com» 
pulsion  of  the  local  magistrate,  being  in 
exiie  there  for  the  faith,  Sulp.  Sev. 
ii.  57. 

d  Ursacius,  Bishop  of  Singidon,  and 
Valens,  Bishop  of  Mursa,  are  generally 
mentioned  together.  They  were  pupils 
of  Arius ;  and  as  such  are  called  young 
by  Athan.  ad  Ep.  JEg.  7.  by  Hilary  ad 
Const,  i.  5.  (imperitis  et  improbis  duo- 
bus  adolescentibus,)  and  by  the  Council 
of  Sardica,  ap.  Hilar.  Fragm.  ii.  12. 
They  first  appear  at  the  Council  of 
Tyre,  A.  D.  335.  The  Council  of  Sar- 
tlica  deposed  them  ;  in  349,  they  pub- 
licly retracted  their  charges  against 
Athanasius,  who  has  preserved  their 
letters,  Apol.  contr.  Arian.  58.  Valens 
was  the  more  prominent  of  the  two ; 
he  was  a  favourite  Bishop  of  Con- 

stantius, was  an  extreme  Arian  in 
his  opinions,  and  the  chief  agent  at 
Ariminum  in  effecting  the  lapse  of  the 
Latin  Fathers. 

e  Germinius  was  made  Bishop  of 
Sirmium  by  the  Eusebians  in  351,  in- 
stead of  Photinus  whom  they  deposed 
for  a  kind  of  Sabellianism.  However, 
he  was  obliged  in  358  to  sign  the 
Semi-arian  formula  of  Ancyra ;  yet  he 
was  an  active  Eusebian  again  at  Ari- 
minum. At  a  later  date  he  approached 
very  nearly  to  Catholicism. 

f  Acacius  has  been  mentioned,  p.  7. 
note  p.  Eudoxius  is  said  to  have  been 
a  pupil  of  Lucian,  Arius's  Master, 
though  the  dates  scarcely  admit  it. 
Eustathius,  Catholic  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
whom  the  Eusebians  subsequently  de- 
posed, refused  to  admit  him  into  orders. 
Afterwards  he  was  made  Bishop  of 
Germanicia  in  Syria,  by  his  party.  He 
was  present  at  the  Council  of  Antioch 
in  341 ,  spoken  of  infra,  $.  22.  and  carried 
into  the  West  in  345,  the  fifth  Confes- 
sion, called  the  Long,  f<taz£oir<ri%a;.  infr. 
§.  26.  He  afterwards  passed  in  succes- 
sion to  the  sees  of  Antioch,  (vid.  supr. 
p.  1.  note  a.)  and  Constantinople,  and 
baptized  the  Emperor  Valens  into  the 
Arian  profession. 

g  Patrophilus  was  one  of  the  original 
Arian  party,  and  took  share  in  all  their 
principal  acts,  but  there  is  nothing 
very  distinctive  in  his  history.  Sozo- 
men assigns  to  these  six  Bishops  the 
scheme  of  dividing  the  Council  into 
two,  Hist.iv.  16.  and  Valens  undertook 
to  manage  the  Latins,  Acacius  the 

No  necessity  for  them.  75 

the  shade  the  Nicene  Council,  aud  prevail  upon  all  to  turn  CHAP. 

round,  and  to  establish  irreligion  every  where  instead  of  the L_ 


3.  Nowhere  I  marvel  first,  and  think  that  I  shall  carry  every  §.  2. 
thinking  man  whatever  with  me,  that,  whereas  a  Catholic 
Council  had  been  fixed,  and  all  were  looking  forward  to  it, 
it  was  all  of  a  sudden  divided  in  two,  so  that  one  part  met 
here,  and  the  other  there.  However,  this  would  seem  provi- 
dential, in  order  in  the  respective  Councils  to  exhibit  the  faith 
without  guile  or  corruption  of  the  one  party,  and  to  expose 
the  dishonesty  and  duplicity  of  the  other.  Next,  this  too  was 
011  the  mind  of  myself  and  my  true  brethren  here,  and  made 
us  anxious,  the  impropriety  of  this  great  gathering  which 
we  saw  in  progress ;  for  what  pressed  so  much,  that  the  whole 
world  was  to  be  put  into  confusion,  and  those  who  at  the  time 
bore  the  profession  of  clerks,  should  run  about  far  and  near, 
seeking  how  best  to  learn  to  believe  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ? 
Certainly,  if  they  were  believers  already,  they  would  not  have 
been  seeking,  as  though  they  were  not.  And  to  the  catechu- 
mens, this  was  no  small  scandal ;  but  to  the  heathen,  it  was 
something  more  than  common,  and  even  furnished  broad 
merriment b,  that  Christians,  as  if  waking  out  of  sleep  at  this 
time  of  day,  should  be  making  out  how  they  were  to  believe 
concerning  Christ ;  while  their  professed  clerks,  though 
claiming  deference  from  their  flocks,  as  teachers,  were  infidels 
on  their  own  shewing,  in  that  they  were  seeking  what  they 
had  not.  And  the  party  of  Ursacius,  who  were  at  the 
bottom  of  all  this,  did  not  understand  what  wrath  they  were 
storing  up  against  themselves,  as  our  Lord  says  by  His 
saints,  Woe  unto  them,  through  whom  My  Name  is  bias-  is. 52, 5. 
phemed  among  the  Gentiles;  and  by  His  own  mouth  in  the24°m 
Gospels,  Whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones,  it  were  Mat.18, 
better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his 
neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea, 

h  The  heathen  Auimianus  speaks  of  bius,  "  that  at  length  in  the  very  midst 

"  the  troops  of  Bishops  hurrying  to  and  of  the  theatres  of  the  unbelievers,  the 

fro  at  the  public  expense,"  and  "  the  solemn  matter*  of  divine  teaching  were 

Synods,  in  their  efforts  to  bring  over  the  subjected  to  the  basest  mockery."    in 

whole religiontotheirside,beingtheruin  vit.  Const.ii  61.  Heathen  Philosophers 

of  the  posting  establishments."     Hist,  attended  the   Nicene   Council,   "  from 

xxi.  16.    "  The  spectacle  proceeded  to  an  interest  to  learn  what  the  Christian 

that  pitch   of  indecency,"  says  Euse-  doctrine  was."  Soz.  i.  18. 


Absurdity  of  dating  the  Catholic  Faith. 

COUNC.  than,  as  Luke  adds,  that  he  should  offend  one  of  these  little 




4.  What  defect  of  teaching  was  there  for  religious  truth  in  the 
§.  3.  Catholic  Church ',  that  they  should  search  after  faith  now,  and 
should  prefix  this  year's  Consulate  to  their  profession  of  it  ? 
Yet  Ursacius,  and  Valens,  and  Germinius,  and  their  friends 
have  done,  what  never  took  place,  never  was  heard  of  among 
Christians.  After  putting  into  writing  what  it  pleased  them 
to  believe,  they  prefix  to  it  the  Consulate,  and  the  month  and 
the  day  of  the  current  year k ;  thereby  to  shew  all  thinking 
men,  that  their  faith  dates,  not  from  of  old,  but  now,  from  the 
reign  of  Constantius l ;  for  whatever  they  write  has  a  view  to 
their  own  heresy.  Moreover,  though  pretending  to  write 

1  "  Who  is  there,  who  when  he 
heard,  upon  his  first  catechisings,  that 
God  had  a  Son,  and  had  made  all 
things  in  His  proper  Word,  did  not  so 
understand  it  in  that  sense  which  we 
now  intend  ?  who,  when  the  vile  Arian 
heresy  began,  but  at  once,  on  hearing 
its  teachers,  was  startled,  as  if  they 
taught  strange  things  ?"  Orat.  ii.  §.  34. 
And  Hilary  with  the  same  sense,  u  I 
call  the  God  of  heaven  and  earth  to 
witness,  that,  before  I  had  heard  either 
term,  I  always  felt  concerning  the  two 
words  that  by '  one  in  substance'  ought  to 
be  understood '  like  in  substance,'  that  is, 
that  nothing  can  be  like  Him  in  nature, 
but  That  which  is  of  the  same  nature. 
Regenerated  long  since,  and  for  a  while 
a  Bishop,  yet  I  never  heard  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  till  I  was  in  exile,  but 
Gospels  and  Apostles  intimated  to  me 
the  meaning  of '  one  in  substance'  and 
'  like  in  substance.'  "  de  Syn.  91.  vid. 
also  ad  Const,  ii.  7. 

k  "  Faith  is  made  a  thing  of  dates 
rather  than  Gospels,  while  it  is  written 
down  by  years,  and  is  not  measured  by 
the  confession  of  baptism."  ad  Const,  ii. 
4.  "  We  determine  yearly  and  monthly 
creeds  concerning  God,  we  repent  of 
our  determinations ;  we  defend  those  who 
repent,  we  anathematize  those  whom  we 
have  defended ;  we  condemn  our  own 
doings  in  those  of  others,  or  others  in 
us,  and  gnawing  each  other,  we  are 
well  nigh  devoured  one  of  another." 
ibid.  5. 

1  "  Who  are  you?  whence  and  when 
came  ye  ?  what  do  ye  on  my  property 
being  none  of  mine  ?  by  what  right,  6 
Marcion,  cuttest  thou  my  wood?  by  what 

license,  0  Valentinus,  turnest  thou  my 
springs?  by  what  power,  O  Apelles, 
movest  thou  mylandmarks?  Mineispos- 
session. . .  I  possess  of  old,  I  have  prior 
possession. .  .1  am  heir  of  the  Apostles." 
Tertull.  de  Prsescr.  37.  Tardily  for  me 
hath  this  time  of  day  put  forth  these,  in 
my  judgment,  most  impious  doctor?. 
Full  late  hath  that  faith  of  mine,  which 
Thou  hast  instructed,  encountered  these 
Masters.  Before  these  names  were 
heard  of,  I  thus  believed  in  Thee,  I  thus 
was  new  born  by  Thee,  and  thenceforth 
I  thus  am  Thine."  21. 
'  What  heresy  hath  ever  burst  forth,  but 
under  the  name  of  some  certain  men, 
in  some  certain  place,  and  at  some  cer- 
tain time  ?  who  ever  set  up  any  heresy, 
who  first  divided  not  himself  from  the 
consent  of  the  universality  and  antiquity 
of  the  Catholic  Church?"  Vincent  Lir. 
Commonit.24.  "  I  will  tell  thee  my  mind 
briefly  and  plainly,  that  thou  shouldest 
remain  in  that  Church  which,  being 
founded  by  the  Apostles,  endures  even  to 
this  day.  When  thou  hearest  that  those 
who  are  called  Christ's,  are  named,  not 
after  Jesus  Christ,  but  after  some  one, 
say  Marcionites,Valentinians,  &c.know 
then  it  is  not  Christ's  Church,  but  the 
synagogue  of  Antichrist.  For  by  the 
very  fact  that  they  are  formed  after- 
wards, they  shew  that  they  are  those 
who  the  Apostle  foretold  should  come." 
Jerom.  in  Lucif.  27.  "  If  the  Church 
was  not. . .  .whence  hath  Donatus  ap- 
peared ?  from  what  soil  has  he  sprung  ? 
out  of  what  sea  hath  he  emerged  ?  from 
what  heaven  hath  he  fallen  ?"  August, 
de  Bapt.  contr.  Don.  iii.  3. 

No  authority  for  it  from  Scripture.  77 

about  the  Lord,  they  nominate  another  sovereign  for  them-  CHAP. 
selves,  Constantius,  who  has   bestowed  on  them  this  reign  — - — 
of  irreligion  m ;  and  they  who  deny  that  the  Son  is  everlasting, 
have  called  him  Eternal  Emperor;    such  foes  of  Christ  are 
they  in  behalf  of  irreligion. 

5.  But  perhaps  the  dates  in  the  holy  Prophets  form  their 
excuse  for  the  Consulate ;  so  bold  a  pretence,  however,  will  serve 
but  to  publish  more  fully  their  ignorance  of  the  subject.  For 
the  prophecies  of  the  sacred  writers  do  indeed  specify  their 
times;  (for  instance,  Esaias  and  Osee  lived  in  the  days  of 
Ozias,  Joatham,  Achaz,  and  Ezekias ;  Jeremias,  in  the  days 
of  Josias ;  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  prophesied  unto  Cyrus  and 
Darius ;  and  others  in  other  times ;)  yet  they  were  not  laying 
the  foundations  of  divine  religion ;  it  was  before  them,  and 
was  always,  for  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  had  God 
prepared  it  for  us  in  Christ.  Nor  were  they  signifying  the 
respective  dates  of  their  own  faith;  for  they  had  been  be- 
lievers before  these  dates,  which  did  but  belong  to  their  own 
preaching.  And  this  preaching  chiefly  related  to  the  Saviour's 
coming,  and  secondarily  to  what  was  to  happen  to  Israel  and 
the  nations ;  and  the  dates  denoted  not  the  commencement 
of  faith,  as  I  said  before,  but  of  the  prophets  themselves,  that 

m  A  than,  says,  that  after  Eusebius  had  judgments.  But  now  a  new  spectacle,  and 
taken  up  the  patronage  of  the  heresy,  this  the  discovery  of  the  Arian  heresy," 
he  made  no  progress  till  he  had  gained  &c.  §.  52.  Again,  "  In  what  then  is  he 
the  Court,  Hist.  Arian.  66.  shewing  behind  Antichrist?  what  more  will  he 
that  it  was  an  act  of  external  power  by  do  when  he  comes  ?  or  rather,  on  his 
which  Arianism  grew,  not  an  inward  coming  will  he  not  find  the  way  by  [Con- 
movement  in  the  Church,  which  indeed  stantius]  prepared  for  him  unto  his  de- 
loudly  protested  against  the  Emperor's  ceiving  without  effort?  for  he  too  is  to 
proceeding.  "  If  Bishops  are  to  judge,"  claim  the  judgments  for  the  court  instead 
he  says  shortly  before,  "  what  has  the  of  the  Churches,  and  of  these  he  istobe- 
Eraperor  to  do  with  this  matter?  if  the  come  head."  §.  76.  And  so  Hosius  to 
Emperor  is  to  threaten,  what  need  of  Constantius,  "Cease,  I  charge  thee,  and 
men  styled  Bishops  ?  where  in  the  world  remember  that  thou  art  a  mortal  man. 
was  such  a  thing  heard  of?  where  had  Fear  the  day  of  judgment ;  keep  thyself 
the  Church's  judgment  its  force  from  clear  against  it.  Interfere  not  with  things 
the  Emperor,  or  his  sentence  was  at  ecclesiastical,  nor  be  the  man  to  charge 
all  recognised?  many  Councils  have  us  in  a  matter  of  the  kind ;  rather  learn 
been  before  this,  many  judgments  them  thyself  from  us.  God  has  put  into 
of  the  Church,  but  neither  the  Fa-  thy  hand  the  kingdom ;  to  us  He  hath 
thers  ever  argued  with  the  Emperor  intrusted  the  things  of  the  Church  ;  and 
about  them,  nor  the  Emperor  meddled  as  he  who  is  traitorous  to  thy  rule  speaks 
with  the  concerns  of  the  Church.  Paul  against  God  who  has  thus  ordained,  so 
the  Apostle  had  friends  of  Caesar's  fear  thou,  lest  drawing  to  thyself  the 
household,  and  in  his  Epistle  he  saluted  things  of  the  Church,  thou  fallest  be- 
the  Philippians  in  their  name,  but  he  neath  a  great  accusation."  A  pud  Athan. 
took  them  not  to  him  as  partners  in  his  ibid.  44.  vid.  infr.  p.  90.  note  p. 

78  Difference  between  decree  of  faith  and  rule  of  discipline. 

COUNC.  is,  when  it  was  they  thus  prophesied.  But  our  modern  sages, 
AND  '  not  in  historical  narration,  nor  in  prediction  of  the  future,  but, 

SELEU.  after  writing,  "The  Catholic  Faith  was  published,"  imme- 
diately add  the  Consulate  and  the  month  and  the  date  ;  that, 
as  the  sacred  writers  specified  the  dates  of  their  histories,  and 
of  their  own  ministries,  so  these  may  mark  the  date  of  their 
own  faith.  And  would  that  they  had  written,  touching 
"  their  own  n  ;"  (for  it  does  date  from  to-day  ;)  and  had  not  made 
their  essay  as  touching  "  the  Catholic,"  for  they  did  not  write, 
"  Thus  we  believe,"  but  "  the  Catholic  Faith  was  published." 
§.4.  6.  The  boldness  then  of  their  design  shews  how  little  they 
understand  the  subject;  while  the  novelty  of  their  phrase  befits 
their  heresy.  For  thus  they  shew,  when  it  was  they  began 
their  own  faith,  and  that  from  that  same  time  present  they 
would  have  it  proclaimed.  And  as  according  to  the  Evan- 
gelist Luke,  there  was  made  a  decree  concerning  the  taxing, 
and  this  decree  before  was  not,  but  began  from  those  days  in 
which  it  was  made  by  its  framer,  they  also  in  like  manner,  by 
writing,  "  The  Faith  is  now  published,"  shewed  that  the 
sentiments  of  their  heresy  are  young,  and  were  not  before. 
But  if  they  add  "  of  the  Catholic  Faith,"  they  fall  before  they 
know  it  into  the  extravagance  of  the  Phrygians,  and  say 
with  them,  "  To  us  first  was  revealed,"  and  "  from  us  dates 
the  Faith  of  Christians."  And  as  those  inscribe  it  with  the 

\  vid.  names  of  Maximilla  and  Montanus1,  so  do  these  with  "  Con- 
,  Sovereign,"  instead  of  Christ.  If,  however,  as  they 

$.47.  would  have  it,  the  faith  dates  from  the  present  Consulate, 
what  must  the  Fathers  do,  and  the  blessed  Martyrs?  nay, 
what  will  they  themselves  do  with  their  own  catechumens, 
who  departed  to  rest  before  this  Consulate  ?  how  will  they 
wake  them  up,  that  so  they  may  obliterate  their  former 
lessons,  and  may  sow  in  turn  the  seeming  discoveries  which 
they  have  now  put  into  writing0?  So  ignorant  they  are  on 

n  "  He  who   speaketh  of  his   own,  nius  at  Seleucia  cried  out,  "  If  to  pub- 

Ix,   ruv  ftieat,   speaketh  a  lie."    Athan.  lish   day   after    day   our   own   private 

contr.  Apoll.  i.  fin.  "  They  used  to  call  (£«*»)  will,  be  a  profession  of  faith,  ac- 

the  Church  a  virgin,"  says  Hegesippus,  curacy   of  truth  will   fail    us."    Socr. 

"  for   it  was  not  yet  denied  by  pro-  ii.  40. 

fane  doctrines  ----  the  Simonists,  Dosi-         °  "  However  the  error  was,  certain- 

thians,  &c.  .  .  .each  privately  (ftiut)  and  ly  error  reigned  so  long  as  heresies  were 

separately  has  brought  in  a  private  opi-  not.  Truth  needed  a  rescue,  and  looked 

nion."  ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  iv.  22.   Sophro-  out  for  Marcionites  and  Valentinians. 

Reasons  for  convening  the  Nicene  Council. 


the  subject ;  with  no  knowledge  but  that  of  making  excuses,  CHAP. 
and  those  unbecoming  and  unplausible,  and  carrying  with  — '- — 
them  their  own  refutation. 

7.  As  to  the  Nicene  Council,  it  was  not  a  common  meeting,  §.  5. 
but  convened  upon  a  pressing  necessity,  and  for  a  reasonable 
object.     The  Syrians,  Cilicians,  and  Mesopotamians,  were 
out  of  order  in  celebrating  the  Feast,  and  kept  Easter  with 
the  Jews p ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  Arian  heresy  had  risen  up 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  and   found  supporters  in  the 
Eusebians,  who  were  both  zealous  for  the  heresy,  and  con- 
ducted the  attack  upon  religious  people.    This  gave  .occasion 
for  an  Ecumenical1  Council,  that  the  feast  might  be  every 'suPr« 
where  celebrated  on  one  day,  and  that  the  heresy  which  was  note  o. 
springing  up  might  be  anathematized.     It  took  place  then ; 
and  the  Syrians  submitted,  and  the  Fathers  pronounced  the 
Arian  heresy  to  be  the  forerunner  of  Antichrist q,  and  drew  up 

Meanwhile,  gospelling  was  nought,  faith 
was  nought,  nought  was  the  baptism  of 
so  many  thousand  thousand,  so  many 
works  of  faith  performed,  so  many 
virtues,  so  many  gifts  displayed,  so 
many  priesthoods,  so  many  ministries 
exercised,  nay,  so  many  martyrdoms 
crowned."  Tertull.  Praescr.29.  '"Pro- 
fane novelties,'  which  if  we  receive,  of 
necessity  the  faith  of  our  blessed  ances- 
tors, either  all  or  a  great  part  of  it  must 
be  overthrown ;  the  faithful  people  of 
all  ages  and  times,  all  holy  saints,  all 
the  chaste,  all  the  continent,  all  the 
virgins,  all  the  Clergy,  the  Deacons, 
the  Priests,  so  many  thousands  of  con- 
fessors, so  great  armies  of  martyrs,  so 
many  famous  populous  cities  and  com- 
monwealths, so  many  islands,  provinces, 
kings,  tribes,  kingdoms,  nations,  to  con- 
clude, almost  now  the  whole  world,  in- 
corporated by  the  Catholic  Faith  to 
Christ  their  head,  must  needs  be  said, 
so  many  hundred  years,  to  have  been 
ignorant,  to  have  erred,  to  have  blas- 
pfceraed,  to  have  believed  they  knew  not 
what."  Vine.  Comm.  24.  "  O  the  ex- 
travagance !  the  wisdom,  hidden  after 
Christ's  coming,  they  announce  to  us  to- 
day, which  is  a  thing  to  draw  tears. 
For  if  the  faith  began  thirty  years  since, 
while  near  four  hundred  are  past  since 
Christ  was  manifested,  nought  hath 
been  our  gospel  that  long  while,  and 
nought  our  faith,  and  fruitlessly  have 

martyrs  been  martyred,  and  fruitlessly 
have  such  and  so  great  rulers  ruled  the 
people.  Greg.  Naz.  ad  Cledon.  Ep. 
102.  p.  97. 

P  This  seems  to  have  been  an  inno- 
vation in  these  countries  of  about  fifty 
years  old,  or  from  about  the  year  276.  It 
is  remarkable,  that  the  Quartodeciman 
custom  had  come  to  an  end  in  Procon- 
sular Asia,  where  it  had  existed  from 
St.  John's  time,  before  it  began  in  Syria. 
Tillemont  refers  the  change  to  Anato- 
lius  of  Laodicea  ;  the  writer  of  this  note 
has  attempted  in  a  former  work  to  prove 
Paul  of  Samosata  the  author  of  it. 

9  trgfyopos,  prsecursor,  is  almost  a 
received  word  for  the  predicted  apostasy 
or  apostate,  (vid.  note  on  St.  Cyril's  Cat. 
xv.  9.  also  infr.  note  p.)  but  the  dis- 
tinction was  not  always  carefully  drawn 
between  the  apostate  and  the  Anti- 
christ. Constantius  is  called  Antichrist 
by  Athan.  Hist.  Arian.  67.  his  acts  are 
the  fgoaiftiev  xo)  <ragct<rx,ivv>  of  Anti- 
christ. Hist.  Arian.  70.  fin.  71.  and  80. 
Constantius  is  the  image,  i!*/wv,  of  Anti- 
christ. 74.  and  80.  and  shews  the  like- 
ness, opoiafia,  of  the  malignity  of  Anti- 
christ. 75.  vid. also 77. #efy"/*at 77.  "Let 
Christ  be  expected,  for  Antichrist  is  in 
possession."  Hilar.  contr.  Const,  init. 
Constantius,  Antichrist,  ibid.  6.  Speak- 
ing of  Auxentius,  the  Arian  Bishop  of 
Milan,  he  says,  "  Of  one  thing  I  warn 
you,  beware  of  Antichrist ;  it  is  ill  that 



'  infr. 
p.  84. 
note  c. 

80         Councils  declare  the  ancient  Apostolical  faith. 

a  suitable  formula  against  it.  And  yet  in  this,  many  as  they 
are>  they  ventured  on  nothing  like  the  proceedings  of  these 
three  or  four  men8.  Without  prefixing  Consulate,  month,  and 
day,  they  wrote  concerning  the  Easter,  "  It  seemed  good  as 
follows,"  for  it  did  then  seem  good  that  there  should  be  a 
general  compliance  ;  but  about  the  faith  they  wrote  not,  "  It 
seemed  good,"  but,  "  Thus  believes  the  Catholic  Church ;" 
and  thereupon  they  confessed  how  the  faith  lay,  in  order  to 
shew  that  their  own  sentiments  were  not  novel,  but  Apo- 
stolical ;  and  what  they  wrote  down,  was  no  discovery  of 
theirs,  but  is  the  same  as  was  taught  by  the  Apostles1. 

a  love  of  walls  has  seized  you,  it  is  511 
that  your  veneration  for  God's  Church 
lies  in  houses  and  edifices ;  it  is  ill  that 
under  this  plea  ye  insinuate  the  name 
of  peace.  Is  there  any  doubt  that  Anti- 
christ is  to  sit  in  these  ?  Mountains 
and  woods  and  lakes  and  prisons  and 
pits  are  to  me  more  safe  ;  for  in  these 
did  prophets,  sojourning  or  sunk,  still 
by  God's  spirit  prophesy."  contr.  Aux. 
12.  Lucifer  calls  Constantius  precursor 
Antichristi.  p.  89.  possessed  with  the 
spirit  of  Antichrist,  p.  219.  friend  of 
Antichrist,  p.  259.  Again,  S.  Jerome, 
writing  against  Jovinian,  says  that  he 
who  so  says  that  there  are  no  differences 
of  rewards  is  Antichrist,  ii.  21.  S.  Leo, 
alluding  to  1  John  4,  10.  calls  Nesto- 
rius  and  Eutyches,  Antichristi  prsecur- 
sores.  Ep.  75.  p.  1022.  Again,  Anti- 
christ, whoever  opposes  what  the 
Church  has  once  settled,  with  an  allu- 
sion to  opposition  to  the  see  of  St.  Peter. 
Ep.  156.  c.  2.  Anastasius  speaks  of 
the  ten  horns  of  Monophysitism,  Hodeg. 
6.  also  8.  and  24.  and  calls  Severus, 
Monophysite  Bp.  of  Antioch,  Anti- 
christ, for  usurping  the  judicial  powers 
of  Christ  and  His  Church,  ibid.  p.  92. 
r  "  They  know  not  to  be  reverent  even 
to  their  leaders.  And  this  is  why  com- 
monly schisms  exist  not  among  heretics ; 
because  while  they  are,  they  are  not  vi- 
sible. Schism  is  their  very  unity.  lam 
a  liar  if  they  do  not  dissent  from  their 
own  rules,  while  every  man  among  them 
equally  alters  at  his  private  judgment 
(suo  arbitrio)  what  he  has  received,  just 
as  he  who  gave  to  them  composed  it  at 
his  private  judgment.  The  progress  of 
the  thing  is  true  to  its  nature  and  its 
origin.  What  was  a  right  to  Valenti- 
nus,  was  a  right  to  Valentinians,  what 

to  Marcion  was  to  the  Marcionites,  to 
innovate  on  the  faith  at  their  private 
judgment.  As  soon  as  any  heresy  is  tho- 
roughly examined,  it  is  found  in  many 
points  dissenting  from  its  parent.  Those 
parents  for  the  most  part  have  no 
Churches ;  they  roam  about  without 
Mother,  without  see,  bereaved  of  the 
faith,  without  a  country,  without  a 
home."  Tertull.  Prsescr.  42.  At  Seleu- 
cia  Acacius  said,  u  If  the  Nicene  faith 
has  been  altered  once  and  many  times 
since,  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
dictate  another  faith  now."  Eleusius 
the  Semi-arian  answered,  "  This  Coun- 
cil is  called,  not  to  learn  what  it  does 
not  know,  not  to  receive  a  faith  which 
it  does  not  possess,  but  walking  in  the 
faith  of  the  Father,"  (meaning  the  Semi- 
arian  Council  of  the  Dedication,  A.D. 
341.  vid.  infr.  §.  22.)  "  it  swerves  not 
from  it  in  life  or  death."  On  this  So- 
crates (Hist.  ii.  40.)  observes,  "  How 
call  you  those  who  met  at  Antioch 
Fathers,  O  Eleusius,  you  who  deny 
their  Fathers  ?  for  those  who  met  at 
Nicsea,  and  unanimously  professed  the 
Consubstantial,  might  more  properly 
receive  the  name,  &c.  But  if  the 
Bishops  at  Antioch  set  at  nought  their 
own  fathers,  those  who  come  after 
are  blindly  following  parricides ;  and 
how  did  they  receive  a  valid  ordination 
from  them,  whose  faith  they  set  at 
nought  as  reprobate  ?  But  if  those  had 
not  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  cometh 
through  laying  on  of  hands,  neither  did 
these  receive  the  priesthood ;  for  did 
they  receive  from  those  who  have  not 
wherewith  to  give  ?" 

s  o\i-yat  -rmj,  says  Pope  Julius,  ap. 
Athan.  Apol.  34.  lyga^elv  THIS  vt^i  xi- 
,  says  Athan.  ad  Ep,  /Eg.  5. 

New  Councils  for  new  heresies.  81 

8.  But  the  Councils  which  they  have  set  in  motion,  what  co-  CHAP. 
lourable  pretext  have  they1  ?  If  any  new  heresy  has  risen  since  1      '  • 
the  Arian,  let  them  tell  us  the  positions  which  it  has  devised,  &g.  10. 
and  who  are  its  inventors  ?    and  in  their  own  formula,  let 
them  anathematize  the  heresies  antecedent  to  this  Council  of 
theirs,  among  which  is  the  Arian,  as  the  Nicene  Fathers  did, 

that  it  may  be  made  appear  that  they  too  have  some  cogent 
reason  for  saying  what  is  novel2.     But  if  no  such  event  has 2vid- 
happened,  and  they  have   it  not  to  shew,  but   rather  they  notes  b 
themselves  are  uttering  heresies,  as  holding  Arius's  irreligion, andc- 
and  are  exposed  day  by  day,  and  day  by  day  shift   their 
ground  *,  what  need  is  there  of  Councils,  when  the  Nicene  is 
sufficient,  as  against  the  Arian  heresy,  so  against  the  rest,  which 
it  has  condemned  one  and  all  by  means  of  the  sound  faith  ? 
For  even  the  notorious  Aetius,  who  was  surnamed  godless3,*  ^J^ 
vaunts  not  of  the  discovering  of  any  mania  of  his  own,  but 
under  stress  of  weather  has  been  wrecked  upon  Arianism, 
himself  and  the  persons  whom  he  has  beguiled.     Vainly  then 
do  they  run  about  with  the  pretext  that  they  have  demanded 
Councils  for  the  faithVsake;  for  divine  Scripture  is  sufficient 
above  all  things ;  but  if  a  Council  be  needed  on  the  point, 
there  are  the  proceedings  of  the  Fathers,  for   the  Nicene 
Bishops  did  not  neglect  this  matter,  but  stated  the  doctrine 
so  exactly,  that  persons  reading  their  words  honestly,  cannot 
but  be  reminded   by  them  of  the  religion  towards  Christ 
announced  in  divine  Scripture  *.  4  vid.  p. 

9.  Having  therefore  no  reason  on  their  side,  but  being  in  dif-  \  '  g0. 
lenity  whichever  way  they  turn,  in  spite  of  their  pretences,  they  note  c* 
have  nothing  left  but  to  say;  "  Forasmuch  as  we  contradict   $'    ' 

1  vid.  de  Deer.  init.  and  §.  4.  and  p.  2.  sometimes  with  rash  presumption,  they 

note  c.     We  shall  have  abundant  in-  allow  such  things  as  seem  uncertain,  at 

stances  of  the  Arian  changes  as  this  another  time  of  pusillanimity  they  are  in 

Treatise    proceeds.     "  It  happens    to  fear  even  about  those  things  which  are 

thee,"  says  S.  Hilary  to  Constantius,  certain  ;  doubtful  which  way  to  take, 

"  as  to  unskilful  builders,  always  to  be  which  way  to  return,  what  to  desire, 

dissatisfied  with  what  thou  hast  done  ;  what  to  avoid,  what  to  hold,  what  to  let 

thou  art  ever  destroying  what  thou  art  go,  &c."    Vincent.  Comm.  20.     "  He 

ever  building."    contr.   Constant.   23.  writes,"  says   Athan.  of  Constantius, 

"  O  miserable  state  !  with  what  seas  of  "  and   while  he   writes    repeats,    and 

cares,   with    what    storms,    are    they  while  he  repeats  is  exasperated ;  and 

tossed!    for  now  at  one  time,   as  the  then  he  grieves  again,  and  not  knowing 

wind  driveth  them,   they   are   carried  how  to  act,  he  shews  how  bereft  the 

away  headlong   in   error;    at  another  soul  is  of  understanding."  Hist.  Arian. 

time,  coming  again  to  themselves,  they  70.  vid.  also  ad  Ep.  ^Eg.  6. 
are  beaten  back  like  contrary  waves ; 

82  Council  of  Arim inum. 

COUNC.OUT  predecessors,  and  transgress  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers, 
AND1   therefore  we  have  thought  good  that  a  Council  should  meet u ; 

SE  LEU.  fout  again,  whereas  we  fear  lest,  should  it  meet  at  one  place, 
our  pains  will  be  thrown  away,  therefore  we  have  thought 
good  that  it  be  divided  into  two ;  that  so  when  we  put  forth 
our  articles  to  these  separate  portions,  we  may  overreach  with 
more  effect,  with  the  threat  of  Constantius  the  patron  of 
this  irreligion,  and  may  abrogate  the  acts  of  Nicaea,  under 
pretence  of  their  simplicity."  If  they  have  not  put  this  into 
words,  yet  this  is  the  meaning  of  their  deeds  and  their  dis- 
turbances. Certainly,  many  and  frequent  as  have  been  their 
speeches  and  writings  in  various  Councils,  never  yet  have 

1  inir.  they  made  mention  of  the  Arian  heresy  as  unchristian  * ;  but,  if 
"  b'  any  present  happened  to  accuse  the  heresies,  they  always 
took  up  the  defence  of  the  Arian,  which  the  Nicene  Council 
had  anathematized ;  nay,  rather,  they  cordially  welcomed  the 
professors  of  A  nanism.  This  then  is  in  itself  a  strong  argu- 
ment, that  the  aim  of  the  present  Councils  was  not  truth,  but 
the  annulling  of  the  acts  of  Nicsea;  but  the  proceedings  of 
them  and  their  friends  in  the  Councils  themselves,  make 
it  equally  clear  that  this  was  the  case : — So  that  it  follows  to 
relate  every  thing  as  it  occurred. 

§.  8.  10.  When  all  were  in  expectation  that  they  were  to  assemble 
in  one  place,  whom  the  Emperor's  letters  convoked,  and  to  form 
one  Council,  they  were  divided  into  two ;  and,  while  some 
betook  themselves  to  Seleucia  called  the  Rugged,  the  others 
met  at  Ariminum,  to  the  number  of  those  four  hundred  bishops 
and  more,  among  whom  were  Germinius,  Auxentius,  Valens, 
Ursacius,  Demophilus,  and  Cains*.  And,  while  the  whole 

u  "  The  Emperor  [Theodosius]  had  to  the  heresiarchs  from  the  Emperor, 

a  conversation  with  Nectarius,  Bishop  whether  they  made  any  sort  of  account 

[of  Constantinople],  in   what   way  to  of  the   doctors    who   belonged   to    the 

make  Christendom  concordant,  and  to  Church  before  the  division,  or  came  to 

unite  the  Church.     This  made  Necta-  issue  with  them  as  aliens  from  Chris- 

rius  anxious ;  but  Sisinnius,  a  man  of  tianity  ;  for  if  they  made  their  autho- 

ready  speech    and   of  practical   expe-  rity  null,  therefore  let  them  venture  to 

rience,  and  throughly  versed  in  the  in-  anathematize  them.     But   if  they  did 

terpretation  of  the  sacred  writings  and  venture,  then  they  would  be  driven  out 

in  the  doctrines  of  philosophy,  having  by  the  people."  Socr.  v.  10. 

a  conviction    that   disputations   would  x  There  were  two  Arian  Bishops  of 

but  aggravate  the  party  spirit  of  the  Milan  of  the  name  of  Auxentius,  but 

heresies  instead  of  reconciling  schisms,  little   is   known   of  them   besides.     S. 

advises  him  to  avoid  dialectic  engage-  Hilary  wrote   against   the  elder;    the 

ments,  and  to  appeal  to  the  statements  other  came  into  collision  with  St.  Am- 

of  the  ancients,  and  to  put  the  question  brose.     Demophilus,  Bishop  of  Berea, 

Third  Confession  of  Sirmium,  Homcean  in  doctrine,     83 

assembly  was  discussing  the  matter  from  the  divine  Scrip-  CHAP. 

tares,  these  men  produced  a  paper,  and,  reading  the  Consu '- — 

late,  they  demanded  that  the  whole  Council  should  acquiesce 
in  it,  and  that  no  questions  should  be  put  to  the  heretics 
beyond  it,  nor  inquiry  made  into  their  meaning,  but  that  it 
should  be  sufficient ; — and  it  ran  as  follows7  : 

11.  The  Catholic  Faith  was  published  in  the  presence  of  our  viii. 
Sovereign  the  most  religious  and  gloriously  victorious  Emperor,  Confes- 
Constantius,    Augustus,  the   eternal   and   majestic,   in  the  Con-  ^^ 
sulate  of  the  most  illustrious  Flavians,  Etisebius,  and  Hypatius,  in  mjan>  0"f 
Sirmium  on  the  llth  of  the  Calends  of  June2.  359.  vid. 

We  believe  in  one  Only  and  True  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  §.  29 
Creator  and  Frarner  of  all  things  :  infr- 

And  in  one  Only-begotten  Son  of  God,  wrho,  before  all  ages, 
and  before  all  origin,  and  before  all  conceivable  time,  and 
before  all  comprehensible  substance,  was  begotten  impassibly  from 
God;  through  whom  the  ages  were  disposed  and  all  things  were 
made ;  and  Him  begotten  as  the  Only -begotten,  Only  from  the 
Only  Father,  God  from  God,  like  to  the  Father  who  begat  Him^o/av 
according  to  the  Scriptures ;  whose  generation  no  one  knoweth 
save  the  Father  alone  wrho  begat  Him.  We  know  that  He,  the 
Only-begotten  Son  of  God,  at  the  Father's  bidding  came 
from  the  heavens  for  the  abolishment  of  sin,  and  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  conversed  with  the  disciples,  and  fulfilled 
the  economy  according  to  the  Father's  will,  and  was  crucified, 
and  died  and  descended  into  the  parts  beneath  the  earth,  and 
had  the  economy  of  things  there,  whom  the  gate-keepers  of 
hell  saw  and  shuddered ;  and  He  rose  from  the  dead  the  third 
day,  and  conversed  with  the  disciples,  and  fulfilled  the  economy, 
and  when  the  forty  days  were  full  ascended  into  the  heavens, 
and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  is  coming  in  the 
last  day  of  the  resurrection  in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  to  render 
to  every  one  according  to  his  wrorks. 

And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Only-begotten  of  God 
Himself,  Jesus  Christ,  had  promised  to  send  to  the  race  of  men, 
the  Paraclete,  as  it  is  written,  "  I  go  to  the  Father,  and  I  will 
ask  the  Father,  and  He  shall  send  unto  you  another  Paraclete, 
even  the  Spirit  of  Truth,"  He  shall  take  of  Mine  and  shall 
teach  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  things. 

was  one  of  those  who  carried  the  long  drawn  up  at  Sirmium.  It  was  the  corn- 
Confession  into  the  West,  though  not  position  of  Mark  of  Arethusa,  yet  it  was 
mentioned  by  Athan.  below.  He  was  written  in  Latin ;  and  though  Mark  was 
afterwards  claimed  by  Aetius,  as  agree-  a  Semi-arian,  it  distinctly  abandons  the 
ing  with  him.  Of  Caius,  an  Illyrian  word  substance.  But  this  point  of  his- 
Bishop,  nothing  is  known  except  that  tory  is  involved  in  much  obscurity.  As 
he  sided  throughout  with  the  Arian  it  stands  it  is  a  patchwork  of  two  views, 
party.  It  will  be  observed,  that  it  is  the  Creed 
y  The  Creed  which  follows  had  been  on  which  Athanasius  has  been  anim- 
prepared  at  Sirmium  shortly  before,  and  adverting  above, 
is  the  third,  or,  as  some  think,  the  fourth,  z  May  22,  359,  Whitsun-Eve. 


84  Collision  between  the  Latin  Bishops  and  the  Acacians. 

COUNC.  But  whereas  the  term  "  substance,"  has  been  adopted  by  the 
ARIM.  Fathers  in  simplicity,  and  gives  offence  as  being  misconceived 
SELEU  ^  tne  Pe°P^e*  an(^  'ls  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  it  has 

'  seemed  good  to  remove  it,  that  it  be  never  in  any  case  used  of  God 

again,  because  the  divine  Scriptures  no  where  use  it  of  Father 
and  Son.  But  we  say  that  the  Son  is  like  the  Father  in  all 
things,  as  all  the  Holy  Scriptures  say  and  teach n. 

§.9.  12.  When  this  had  been  read,  the  dishonesty  of  its  framers 
was  soon  apparent.  For  on  the  Bishops  proposing  that  the 
Arian  heresy  should  be  anathematized  together  with  the  other 
heresies b,  and  all  assenting,  Ursacius  and  Valens  and  their 
friends  refused ;  till  in  the  event  the  Fathers  condemned  them, 
on  the  ground  that  their  confession  had  been  written,  not  in 
sincerity,  but  for  the  annulling  of  the  Acts  of  Nicaea,  and  the 
introduction  instead  of  their  miserable  heresy.  Mar  veiling  then 
at  the  deceitfulness  of  their  language  and  their  unprincipled 
intentions,  the  Bishops  said;  "  Not  as  if  in  need  of  faith  have 
we  come  hither ;  for  we  have  within  us  faith,  and  that  in  sound- 
ness :  but  that  we  may  put  to  shame  those  who  gainsay  the 
truth  and  attempt  novelties.  If  then  ye  have  drawn  up  this 
formula,  as  if  now  beginning  to  believe,  ye  are  not  so  much  as 
clerks,  but  are  starting  with  school ;  but  if  you  meet  us  with 
the  same  views,  with  which  we  have  come  hither,  let  there  be  a 
general  unanimity,  and  let  us  anathematize  the  heresies,  and 
preserve  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers.  Thus  pleas  for 
Councils  will  not  longer  circulate  about,  the  Bishops  at  Nicaea 
having  anticipated  them  once  for  all,  and  done  all  that  was 
needful  for  the  Catholic  Church0/'  However,  even  then,  in 

a  This  clause  shews  the  presence  and  nasius  ;  then  they  held  Councils  to  ex- 
influence  of  the  Acacian  party  ;  but  the  plain  the  faith ;  then  they  attacked  the 
confession  is  raised  towards  the  end  hy  received  terms  of  theology,  and  thereby 
the  introduction  of  the  phrase,  "  like  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  professing  to  adhere 
all  things,"  x,et<rct  wa,vza,  ofteiov,  which  to  Scripture.  At  Seleucia,  as  described 
was  added  by  Constantius  himself,  infra,  they  openly  attacked  the  Creed. 
Epiph.  Hser.  73.  22.  and  which  in  the  But  they  did  not  dare  avow  the  Arian 
minds  of  the  more  orthodox  included  heresy ;  the  first  step  then  on  the  part 
"  substance,"  vid.  S.  Cyril,  Catech.  iv.  of  the  Catholics  was  to  demand  of  them 
7.  xi.  18.  a  sense,  however,  which  is  a  condemnation  of  it.  The  Anomoeans 
contradictory  to  what  goes  before.  It  perplexed  the  Eusebians  by  letting 
is  impossible  to  go  into  this  subject  out  the  secret  of  their  real  Arian- 
without  being  involved  in  historical  ism. 

difficulties,  which   there  would  be   no  c  It  need  scarcely  be  said,  that  the 

room  for  discussing.  great  object  of  the  Arians  was  to  ob- 

b  The  Eusebian  party  began   after  tain    a    consideration    of   the   doctrine 

the  Nicene  Council  by  attacking  Atha-  settled  at   Niceea  by  a  new    Council. 

TheCouncil  condemns  the  Acacians  and  writes  foConstantius.85 

spite   of  this  general  agreement   of  the  Bishops,   still   the  CHAP. 
above-mentioned  refused.     So  at  length  the  whole  Council,  —  :  — 
condemning  them  as  ignorant  and  deceitful  men,  or  rather 
as  heretics,  gave  their  suffrages  in  behalf  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
and  gave  judgment  all  of  them  that  it  was  enough  ;  but  as  to 
the  forenamed  Ursacius  and  Valens,  Germanicus,  Auxentius, 
Caius,  and  Demophilus,  they  pronounced  them  to  be  heretics, 
deposed  them  as  not  really  Christians1,  but  Allans,  and  wrote  '  supr. 
against  them  in  Latin  what  has  been  translated  in  its  sub-  Jote  h. 
stance  2  into  Greek,  thus  :  — 

18.   Copy  of  an  Epistle  from  the  Council  to  Constantius,     §.  10. 
Augustus  d  :  — 

"  We  believe  it  has  been  ordered  by  God's  command,  upon  the 
mandate  ''  of  your  religiousness,  that  we,  the  Bishops  of  the 
Western  Provinces,  came  from  all  parts  to  Ariminum,  for  the 
manifestation  of  the  Faith  to  all  Catholic  Churches  and  the 
detection  of  the  heretics.  For  upon  a  discussion,  in  which  we  all 
took  part  who  are  right-minded,  it  was  resolved  to  adhere  to  that 
faith  which,  enduring  from  antiquity  we  have  ever  received  from 
Prophets,  Gospels,  and  Apostles,  from  God  Himself,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  upholder  of  your  dominion,  and  the  author  of  your 
welfare  For  we  deemed  it  to  be  a  sin,  to  mutilate  any  work  of  the 
saints,  and  in  particular  of  those  who  in  the  case  of  the  Nicene  for- 

This    Athan.    all    through    his   works  that  the   Council  did  publish  a  creed. 

strenuously  resists.    In  the  Letter  which  And,  as  has  been  alluded  to  in  a  former 

follows,  the  Council  observes,  that  the  note,  p.  70.  a  remarkable  confession,  and 

Emperor  had  commanded  lt  to  treat  of  attributed   to  the  Council,  does  exist, 

the    faith,"   under    which    ambiguous  Accordingly  Athanasius,   Eusebius  of 

phrase  the  Arians  attempted  to  "  pro-  Vercella:, and  the  Council  of  Alexandria, 

pose,"  as  they  say,  "  something  novel  A.D.  362,  protest  against  the  idea.  "It 

for  their  consideration."      And  so   at  is    true    that   certain    persons    wished 

Sardica  the    Council   writes  to    Pope  to  add  to  the  Nicene  Council  as  if  there 

Julius,  that  the  Emperors  Constantius  was  something  wanting,  but  the  Holy 

and  Constans  had  proposed  three  sub-  Council  was  displeased,"  &c.  Tom.  ad 

jects  for  its  consideration  ;  first,  u  that  Antioch.  However,  Vigilius  ofThapsus 

all  points  in  discussion  should  be  de-  repeats  the  report,   contr.   Eutych.  v. 

bated  afresh  (de  integro),  and  above  all  init. 

concerning  the  holy  faith  and  the  inte-         d  The  same   version  of  the    Letter 

grity  of  the  truth  which  [the  Arians]  had  which  follows  is  found  in  Socr.  ii.  39. 

violated."  Enemies  of  Soz.  iv.  10.  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  19.  Niceph. 

the  Arians  seem  to  have  wished  this  as  i.  40.     On  comparison  with  the  Latin 

well  as  themselves  ;  and  the  Council  got  original,  which  is  preserved  by  Hilary, 

into  difficulty  in  consequence.  Hosius  the  Fragm.  viii.  it  appears  to  be  so   very 

president  and  Protogenes  Bishop  of  the  freely  executed,  that  it  has  been  thought 

place  wrote   to    the  Pope  to  explain,  better  here  to  translate  it  from  the  text 

"  from  fear,"  says  Sozomen,  "  lest  some  of  Hilary. 

might  think  that  there  was  any  innova-         e  Ex  prsecepto.  Praceptum  becomes 

tion  upon  the  Nicene  decrees."  iii.  12.  a  technical  word  afterwards  for  a  royal 

From  his  way  of  stating  the  matter,  deed,   charter,   or   edict;    and   it   has 

Sozomen  seems  to  have  himself  believed  somewhat  of  that  meaning  even  here. 

86  Letter  of  the  Council  of  Arim  in  inn. 

COUNC.  mulary,held  session  together  with  Coristantine  of  glorious  memory, 
ARIM.  the  Father  of  your  religiousness.    Which  formulary  was  put  abroad 
AND     and  gained  entrance  into  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  being  at 
SELEU-  that  time  drawn  up  against  Arianism,  is  found  to  be  such,  that 
heresies  are  overthrown  by  it ;    from  which,  if  aught  were  sub- 
tracted, an  opening  is  made  to  the  poison  of  the  heretics. 

Accordingly  Ursacius  and  Valens  formerly  came  into  suspicion 
of  the  said   Arian  heresy,  and  were  suspended  from  Communion, 
1  supr.    and  asked  pardon  according  to  their  letters1,  and  obtained  it  then 
P-  ^4-      at  the  Council  of  Milan,  in  the  presence  of  the  legates  of  the  Roman 
note  d.    Qhurci^  Andsince  Constantine  was  at  the  Nicene Council,  whenthe 
formulary  was  drawn  up  with  great  deliberation,  and  after  being 
baptized  with  the  profession  of  it,  departed  to  God's  rest,  we  think 
it  a  crime  to  mutilate  aught  in  it,  and  in  any  thing  to  detract 
from  so  many   Saints,  and  Confessors,  and   Successors  of  Mar- 
tyrs who  drew  it  up ;  considering  that  they  in  turn  preserved  all 
doctrine  of  the  Catholics  who  were  before  them,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  they  remained  unto  these  times  in  which  thy 
religiousness  has  received  the  charge  of  ruling  the  world  from 
God  the  Father  through  our  God  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ.    For  them, 
they  were  attempting  to  pull  up  whathadbeen  reasonably  laid  down. 
For,  whereas  the  letters  of  your  religiousness  commanded  to  treat  of 
the  faith,  there  was  proposed  to  us  by  the  aforenamed  troublers 
of  the  Churches,  Germinius  being  associated  with  Auxentius f  and 
Caius,  something  novel  for  our  consideration,  which  contained 
many  particulars  of  perverse  doctrine.     Accordingly,  when  they 
found  that  what  they  proposed  publicly  in  the  Council  was  un- 
acceptable,  they  considered   that  they  must   draw    up    another 
statement.     Indeed  it  is  certain  that  they  have  often  changed  these 
formularies  in  a  short  time.     And  lest  the  Churches  should  have 
a  recurrence  of  these  disturbances,  it  seemed  good  to  keep  the 
ancient  and  reasonable  institutions.     For  the  information  there- 
fore of  your  clemency,  we  have  instructed  our  legates  to  acquaint 
you  of  the  judgment  of  the  Council  by  our  letter,  to  whom  we 
have  given  this  sole  direction,  not  to  execute  the  legation  other- 
wise than  for  the  stability  and  permanence  of  the  ancient  decrees; 
that  your  wisdom  also  might  know,  that  peace  would  not   be 
accomplished  by  the  removal  of  those  decrees,  as  the  aforesaid 
Valens  and  Ursacius,  Germinius  and   Caius,  engaged.     On  the 
contrary,  troubles  have  in  consequence  been  excited  in  all  regions 
and  the  Roman  Church. 

On  this  account  we  ask  your  clemency  to  regard  and  hear  all 
our  legates  with  favourable  ears  and  a  serene  countenance,  and 

f  Auxentius,  omitted  in  Hilary's  copy,  also  was  deposed,  but  he  was  an  East- 
is  inserted  here,  and  in  the  Decree  which  ern  Bishop,  if  he  be  Demophilus  of 
follows,  from  the  Greek,  since  Atha-  Berea.  vid.  Coustant.  on  Hil.  Fragm. 
nasius  has  thus  given  his  sanction  to  the  vii.  p.  1342.  Yet  he  is  mentioned  also 
factof  his  being  condemned  atAriminum.  by  Athanasius  as  present,  supra,  §.  9.  A 
Yet  Auxentius  appeals  to  Ariminumtri-  few  words  are  wanting  in  the  Latin 
umphantly.  Hil.  contr.  Aux.  fin.  Socra-  in  the  commencement  of  one  of  the 
tes,  Hist.  ii.  37.  says,  that  Demophilus  sentences  which  follow. 

Decree  of  lite  Council.  87 

not  to  suffer  aught  to  be  abrogated  to  the  dishonour  of  the  CHAP. 
ancients  ;  so  that  all  things  may  continue  which  we  have  received  *• 
from  our  forefathers,  who,  as  we  trust,  were  prudent  men,  and 
acted  not  without  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God;  because  by  these 
novelties  not  only  are  faithful  nations  troubled,  but  the  infidels  also 
are  deterred  from  believing.  We  pray  also  that  you  would  give 
orders  that  so  many  Bishops,  who  are  detained  at  Ariminum,  among 
those  are  numbers  who  are  broken  with  age  and  poverty,  may 
return  to  their  own  country,  lest  the  members  of  their  Churches 
suffer,  as  being  deprived  of  their  Bishops.  This,  however,  we 
ask  with  earnestness,  that  nothing  be  innovated,  nothing  with- 
drawn ;  but  that  all  remain  incorrupt  which  has  continued  in 
the  times  of  the  Father  of  your  sacred  piety  and  in  your  own 
religious  days;  and  that  your  holy  prudence  will  not  permit  us  to 
be  harassed,  and  torn  from  our  sees ;  but  that  the  Bishops  may  in 
quiet  give  themselves  always  to  the  prayers,  which  they  do  always 
offer  for  your  own  welfare  and  for  your  reign,  and  for  peace,  which 
may  the  Divinity  bestow  on  you,  according  to  your  merits,  profound 
and  perpetual !  But  our  legates  will  bring  the  subscriptions  and 
names  of  the  Bishops  or  Legates,  as  another  letter  informs  your 
holy  and  religious  prudence. 

1-1.    Decree  of  the  Council*.  §•  H. 

As  far  as  it  was  fitting,  dearest  brethren,  the  Catholic  Council 
has  had  patience,  and  has  so  often  displayed  the  Church's  for- 
bearance towards  Ursacius  and  Valens,  Germinius,  Cams,  and 
Auxentius;  who  by  so  often  changing  what  they  had  believed, 
have  troubled  all  the  Churches,  and  still  are  endeavouring  to 
introduce  their  heretical  spirit  into  Christian  minds.  For  they 
wish  to  annul  the  formulary  passed  at  Nicaea,  which  was  framed 
against  the  Arian  and  other  heresies.  They  have  presented  to  us 
besides  a  creed  drawn  up  by  themselves,  which  we  could  not  law- 
fully receive.  Even  before  this  have  they  been  pronounced 
heretics  by  us,  and  it  has  been  confirmed  by  a  long  period,  whom 
we  have  not  admitted  to  our  communion,  but  condemned  them  in 
their  presence  by  our  voices.  Now  then,  what  seems  good  to 
you,  again  declare,  that  it  may  be  ratified  by  the  subscription  of 

All  the  Bishops  answered,  It  seems  good  that  the  aforenamed 
heretics  should  be  condemned,  that  the  Church  may  remain  in 
unshaken  faith,  which  is  truly  Catholic,  and  in  perpetual  peace. 

15.  Matters  at  Arimiimm  then  had  this  speedy  issue  ;    for 

g  This  Decree  is  also  here  translated  proposed,  acknowledges  in  particular 
from  the  original  in  Hilary,  who  has  both  the  word  and  the  meaning  of  "  sub- 
besides  preserved  the  "  Catholic  Defi-  stance;"  "  substantise  nomen  et  rem,  a 
nition"  of  the  Council,  in  which  it  pro-  multis  sanctis  Scripturis  insinuatam 
fesses  its  adherence  to  the  Creed  of  mentibus  nostris,  obtinere  debere  stii 
Nicgpa,  and  in  opposition  to  the  Sir-  firmitatem."  Fragm.  vii.  3. 
mian  Confession  which  the  Arians  had 

88    Union  of  the  Acacians  at  Seleucia  with  the  Anomceans. 

COUNC.  there  was  no  disagreement  there,  but  all  of  them  with  one 
ANp  accord  both  put  into  writing  what  they  decided  upon,  and 
SELEU.  deposed  the  Arians b.  Meanwhile  the  transactions  in  Seleucia 
§.  12.  the  Rugged  were  as  follows :  it  was  in  the  month  called  by  the 
Romans  September,  by  the  Egyptians  Thoth,  and  by  the 
Macedonians  Gorpiaeus ',  and  the  day  of  the  month  according 
to  the  Egyptians  the  16th,  upon  which  all  the  members  of  the 
Council  assembled  together.  And  there  were  present  about 
a  hundred  and  sixty ;  and  whereas  there  were  many  who 
were  accused  among  them,  and  their  accusers  were  crying 
out  against  them,  Acacius,  and  Patrophilus,  and  Uranius  of 
Tyre,  and  Eudoxius,  who  usurped  the  Church  of  Antioch, 
and  Leontius,  and  Theodotus,  and  Evagrius,  and  Theodulus, 
and  George  who  has  been  driven  from  the  whole  world k,  adopt 
an  unprincipled  course.  Fearing  the  proofs  which  their  ac- 
cusers had  to  shew  against  them,  they  coalesced  with  the  rest  of 
the  Arian  party  \  (who  were  mercenaries  in  the  cause  of  irreligioi 
as  if  for  this  purpose,  and  were  ordained  by  Secundus  who  hi 

h  Athanasius  seems  to  have  known 
no  more  of  the  proceedings  at  Arimi- 
num,  which  perhaps  were  then  in  pro- 
gress, when  he  wrote  this  Treatise ; 
their  termination,  as  is  well  known,  was 
very  unhappy,  u  Ingemuittotus  orhis," 
says  St.  Jerome,  u  et  Arianum  se  esse 
miratus  est."  ad  Lucif.  19.  A  deputation 
of  ten  persons  was  sent  from  the  Coun- 
cil to  Constantius,  to  which  Valens  op- 
posed «>ne  of  his  own.  Constantius  pre- 
tended the  barbarian  war,  and  delayed 
an  answer  till  the  beginning  of  October, 
the  Council  having  opened  in  July. 
The  Postscript  to  this  Treatise  con- 
tained the  news  of  this  artifice  and  of 
the  Council's  distress  in  consequence, 
which  Athanasius  had  just  heard.  He 
also  seems  to  have  inserted  into  his 
work,  £.  30  and  31,  upon  the  receipt  of 
the  news  of  the  mission  of  Valens  to 
Constantinople,  a  mission  which  ended 
in  the  submission  of  the  Catholic  dele- 
gacy. Upon  this  returning  to  Ariminum 
with  the  delegates  and  the  Arian  creed 
they  had  signed,  (vid.  infr.  §.  30.) 
Valeiis,  partly  by  menaces  and  partly 
by  sophistry,  succeeded  in  procuring  the 
subscriptions  of  the  Council  also  to  the 
same  formula. 

1  Gorpiseus  was  the  first  month  of  the 
Syro-Macedonic  year  among  theGreeks, 
dating  according  to  the  era  of  the  Seleu- 

cidffi.     The  Roman  date  of  the  meetir 
of  the  Council  was  the  27th  of  Septem- 
ber.    The  original  transactions  at  Ari- 
minum had  at  this  time  been  finishe  " 
as    much    as    two    mouths,     and    its 
deputies  were  waiting  for  Constanth 
in  Constantinople. 

k  There  is  little  to  observe  of  these 
Acacian  Bishops  in  addition  to  wl 
has  been  said  of  several  of  them,  exc 
that  George  is  the  Cappadocian,  the 
notorious  intruder  into  the  see  of 
Athanasius.  The  charges  which  laj 
against  them  were  of  various  kinds. 
Socrates  says  that  the  Acacian  party 
consisted  in  all  of  34  ;  others  increase  it 
by  a  few  more. 

1  The  Eusebian  or  Court  party  are 
here  called  Acacian,  and  were  Anomce- 
ans and  Semi-arians  alternately,  or 
more  properly  as  they  may  be  called 
Homcean  or  Scriptural;  for  Arians, 
Semi-arians,  and  Anomceans,  all  used 
theological  terms  as  well  as  the  Catho- 
lics. The  Semi-arians  numbered  about 
100,  the  remaining  dozen  might  be  the 
Egyptian  Bishops  who  were  zealous 
supporters  of  the  Catholic  cause.  How- 
ever, there  were  besides  a  few  Anomce- 
ans or  Arians,  as  Athan.  calls  them, 
with  whom  the  Acacians  now  coa- 

Semi-arian  majority  condemn  them.  89 

been  deposed  by  the  great  Council,)  the  Libyan   Stephen,  CHAP. 
and  Seras,  and   Pollux,  who   were  under  accusation   upon  —  I;  — 
various  charges,  next  Pancratius,  and  one  Ptolemy  a  Mele- 
tianm.     And   they   made   a  pretence  of  entering  upon  the 
question    of  faith,  but  it   was   clear  n   they  were   doing    so 
from   fear  of  their   accusers  ;    and   they   took   the   part   of 
the  heresy,  till  at  length  they  were  left  by  themselves.     For, 
whereas  supporters  of  the  Acacians  lay  under  suspicion  and 
were  very  few,  but  the  others  were  the  majority;    therefore 
the   Acacians,   acting    with    the    boldness    of    desperation, 
altogether   denied   the   Nicene   formula,   and   censured    the 
Council,  while  the  others,  who  were  the  majority,  accepted 
the  whole  proceedings  of  the  Council,  except  that  they  com- 
plained of  the  word  "  Consubstantial,"  as  obscure  and  open 
to  suspicion.     When  then  time   passed,  and  the    accusers 
pressed,  and  the  accused   put  in  pleas,  and   thereby  were 
led  on  further  by  their  irreligion  and  blasphemed  the  Lord, 
thereupon  the  majority  of  Bishops  became  indignant0,  and 
deposed  Acacius,  Patrophilus,  Uranius,  Eudoxitis,  and  George 
the  contractor1,  and  others  from  Asia,  Leontius,  and  Theodosius,  !  pork- 
Evagrius    and    Theodoret,    and  excommunicated    Asterius,  factor 
Eusebius,  Augerus,  Basilicus,  Phoabus,  Fidelias,  Eutychius,  to  the 
and  Magnus.     And  this  they  did  on  their  non-appearance,  i 

when   summoned  to   defend  themselves   on   charges    which 
numbers  preferred  against  them.     And  they  decreed  that  so  Arian. 
they   should   remain,   until   they   made   their   defence  1 


ra  The  Meletian  schismatics  of  Egypt  arian  Confession  of  the  Dedication,  341. 

had  formed  an  alliance  with  the  Arians  of  which  infr.  §.  22.  Basil  of  Ancyra, 

from  the  first.  Athan.  imputes  the  the  leading  Semi-arian,  was  not  present  j 

alliance  to  ambition  and  avarice  in  the  and  he  and  Mark  of  Arethusa  were  both 

Meletians,  and  to  zeal  for  their  heresy  parties  to  the  Acacian  third  Sirmium 

in  the  Arians.  Ad  Ep.  JEg.  22.  vid.  Confession,  which  had  been  proposed  at 

also  Hist.  Arian.  78.  After  Sardica  the  Ariminum.  George  of  Laodicea,  how- 

Semi-arians  attempted  a  coalition  with  ever,  who  was  with  him  at  the  Council  of 

the  Donatists  of  Africa.  Aug.  contr.  Ancyra  in  the  foregoing  year,  acted  as 

Cresc.  iii.  38.  the  leader  of  the  Semi-arians.  After 

n  Acacius  had  written  to  the  Semi-  this  the  Acacians  drew  up  another 

arian  Macedonius  of  Constantinople  Confession,which  Athan.  has  preserved, 

in  favour  of  the  XKTO,  rcivrct  opeiav,  and  infra,  §.  29.  in  which  they  persist  in 

of  the  Son's  being  *•*?  awrJJf  ovriaf,  and  their  rejection  of  all  but  Scripture 

this  the  Council  was  aware  of.  Soz.  iv.  terms.  This  the  Semi-arian  majority 

22.  Acacius  made  answer  that  no  one  rejected,  and  proceeded  to  depose  its 

ancient  or  modern  was  ever  judged  by  authors.  There  is  nothing  to  remark 

his  writings.  Socr.  ii.  40.  as  regards  the  names  of  Arian  Bishop.s 

0  They    also   confirmed    the    Semi-  here  introduced  into  the  text. 


A  RIM. 



§.  13. 

1  supr. 
p.  80, 
note  r. 

2  -ff^i- 


int'r.  §. 
16.  fin. 

QQContrastbeiween  Council  of Arimimtm  in  itsjirst  proceeding* 

cleared  themselves  of  the  offences  imputed  to  them.  And 
after  despatching  the  sentence  pronounced  against  them  to 
the  diocese  of  each,  they  proceeded  to  Constantius,  that  most 
irreligious  p  Augustus,  to  report  to  him  their  proceedings,  as 
they  had  been  ordered.  And  this  was  the  termination  of  the 
Council  in  Seleucia. 

16.  Who  then  but  must  approve  of  the  conscientious  conduct 
of  the  Bishops  at  Ariminum  ?  who  endured  such  labour  of 
journey  and  perils  of  sea,  that  by  a  sacred  and  canonical 
resolution  they  might  depose  the  Arians,  and  guard  inviolate 
the  definitions  of  the  Fathers.  For  each  of  them  deemed 
that,  if  they  undid  the  acts  of  their  predecessors,  they  were 
affording  a  pretext  to  their  successors  to  undo  what  they 
themselves  then  were  enacting1.  And  who  but  must  condemn 
the  fickleness  of  the  party  of  Eudoxius  and  Acacius,  who 
sacrifice2  the  honour  due  to  their  own  fathers  to  partizaii- 

P  Up  to  the  year  356,  Athanasius 
had  treated  Constantius  as  a  member 
of  the  Church  ;  but  at  that  date  the 
Eusebian  or  Court  party  abandoned  the 
Semi-aiians  for  the  Anomoeans,  George 
of  Cappadoda  was  sent  as  Bishop  to 
Alexandria,  Athanasius  was  driven 
into  the  desert,  St.  Hilary  and  other 
Western  Bishops  were  sent  into  banish- 
ment, Hosius  was  persecuted  into  sign- 
ing an  Arian  confession,  and  Pope 
Liberius  into  communicating  with  the 
Arians.  Upon  this  Athanasius  chang- 
ed his  tone  and  considered  that  he  had 
to  deal  with  an  Antichrist.  We  have 
seen  above,  note  g,  the  language  both 
of  himself  and  others  in  consequence. 
In  his  Apol.  contr.  Arian.  init. 
(A.D.  350.)  ad  Ep.  JEg.  5.  (356.)  and 
his  Apol. ad  Constant,  passim.  (356.)  he 
calls  the  Emperor  most  pious,  reli- 
gious, &c.  At  the  end  of  the  last-men- 
tioned work,  §.  27.  the  news  comes  to 
him  while  in  exile  of  the  persecution  of 
the  Western  Bishops  and  the  measures 
against  himself.  He  still  in  the  per- 
oration calls  Constantius,  "  blessed  and 
divinely  favoured  Augustus,"  and  urges 
on  him  that  he  is  a  "  Christian. ^iXo^iff- 
TUJ,  Emperor."  In  the  works  which  fol- 
low, Apol.  de  fuga,  §.  26.  (357.)  he  calls 
him  an  heretic;  and  Hist.  Arian.  §.  45, 
&c.  (358.)  speaking  of  the  treatment  of 
Hosius,  &c.  he  calls  him  '<  Ahab," 

"  Belshazzar,"  "  Saul,"  "  Antichrist." 
The  passage  at  the  end  of  the  Apol. 
contr.  Arian.  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
"  much  violence  and  tyrannical  power 
of  Constantius,"  is  an  addition  of 
Athan.'s  at  a  later  date,  vid.  Montfau- 
con's  note  on  §.  88.  fin.  This  is  worth 
mentioning,  as  it  shews  the  unfairness 
of  the  following  passage  from  Gibbon, 
ch.  xxi.  note  116.  "  As  Athanasius 
dispersed  secret  invectives  against  Con- 
stantius, see  the  Epistle  to  the  monks," 
[i.  e.  Hist.  Arian.  ad  Monach.  A.  D. 
358.]  "  at  the  same  time  that  he 
assured  him  of  his  profound  respect,  we 
might  disfust  the  professions  of  the 
Archbishop,  torn.  i.  p.  677."  [i.  e.  ap- 
parently Apol.  ad  Const.  A.D.  356.] 
Again  in  a  later  part  of  the  chapter, 
"  In  his  public  Apologies,  which  he 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  himself,  he 
sometimes  affected  the  praise  of  modera- 
tion ;  whilst  at  the  same  time  in  secret 
and  vehement  invectives  he  exposed 
Constantius  as  a  weak  and  wicked 
prince,  the  executioner  of  his  family, 
the  tyrant  of  the  republic,  and  the  Anti- 
chris't  of  the  Church."  He  offers  no 
proof  of  this  assertion.  It  may  be  added 
that  S.  Greg.  Naz.  praises  Constantius, 
but  it  is  in  contrast  to  Julian.  Orat.  iv. 
3.  v.  6.  And  S.  Ambrose,  but  it  is  for 
his  enmity  to  paganism.  Ep.  i.  18. 
n.  32. 

and  fhe  Acacians. 


ship  and  patronage  of  the  Ario-maniacsq?  for  what  confidence 
can  be  placed  in  their  acts,  if  the  acts  of  their  fathers  be 
undone  ?  or  how  call  they  them  fathers  and  themselves  suc- 
cessors, if  they  set  about  impeaching  their  judgment  ?  and 
especially  what  can  Acacius  say  of  his  own  master,  Eusebius, 
who  not  only  gave  his  subscription*in  the  Niceiie  Council, 
but  even  in  a  letter  *  signified  to  his  flock,  that  that  was  true 
faith,  which  the  Council  had  declared?  for,  if  he  explained 

i  vid. 


q  "  The  dumb  ass  forbade  the  mad-  we  read  much  of  their  eager  spirit  of 

ness  of  the  prophet,"  •x-Kgxipoovi/x.v.    On  proselytism.   Theod.    ibid.      The   ori- 

the  word'A^j/^avrra/,  Giobon  observes,  ginal  word  mania  best  expresses  it  in 

"  The  ordinary  appellation  with  which  English.      Their    cruelty    came    into 

Athanasius  and  his  followers  chose  to  this   idea   of  their    "  mania ;"    hence 

compliment  the    Arians,   was  that  of  Athan.  in  one   place   calls  the  Arian 

Ariomanites,"ch.  xxi.  note 61.  Bather,  women,    in    the  tumult  under   George 

the    name  originally  was  a  state  title,  of     Cappadocia,     Mcenades.     u  They 

injoined  by    Constantine,    vid.  Petav.  running    up     and     down     like    Bac- 

de  Trin.  i."  8.  fin.  Naz.  Orat.  p.  794.  chanals  and  furies,  pcuvefits  *«<  l^'vm?, 

note   e.   and  thenceforth  used   by   the  thought   it   a   misfortune   not    to   rind 

general   Church,   e.  g.   Eustathius   of  opportunity  for  injury,  and  passed  that 

Antioch,  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  7.   Con-  day  in  grief  in  which  they  could  do  no 

stant.  ap.  Conril.  t.  i.  p.  456.  b.  Hilar.  harm."  Hist.  Arian.  59.     Also  "  pro- 

de  Trin.  vi.     Julius  ap.  Athan.  Apol.  fana    Ariorum  novitas    velut   qugedam 

23.   Council  of  Egypt,  ibid.  6.    Phse-  Bellona  aut  Furia."  Vincent.  Commin. 

badius,  contr.  Arian.  circ.  fin.  Epiph.  6.    Eustathius  speaks  of  ol  fKou$*>%<ii  T^ 

Ha°r.  69.  19.  (o  ftetvi&dv;  'Ajs<«?.)  Greg,  ugt'ou  8v[Ai\ys  fittri!%t>goi.  ap.  Phot.  -225. 

Naz.    Orat.   ii.   37.   TV*;  'A^s/ow  xxXug  p.  759.    And  hence  tlie  strange  parono- 

ovaf/a.trh7ffuy  f^xviav    and   SO   o  Ttjf 

l-xtawpos.  Orat.  43.  30.  vid.  also  Orat. 
20.  5.  and  so  Proclus,  vvv'Agi'iov  pxviuv 
ad  Arinen.  p.  618  fin.  And  Athan.  e.  g 

\ov.   ad   S 


masia  of  Constantine,  'A^sj,  ci^-is,  with 
an  allusion  to  Horn.  II.  v.  31.  A  second 
reason,or  rather  sense,of  the  appellation 
was  what  is  noted,  supr.  p.  2.  note  e. 
i.  1.  also  that,  denying  the  Word,  they  have  foi'- 

ad  Serap.  i.  17  fin.  19  init.  20.  d.  24.     feited   the   gift   of  reason,    e.    g 

e.  29.  e.  ii.  1  fin.  iv.  5  init.  6  fin.  15 

de    Sent. 

fin.  16  fin.     In  some  of  these  the  denial  Dion.  init.  vid.  ibid.  24.  fin.  Orat.  ii.  §. 

of  the  divinity  of  the   Holy    Ghost   is  32.  c.  iii.  §.  63.  throughout.     Hence  in 

the  madness.     In  like  manner  Hilary  like  manner  Athan.  speaks  of  the  heathen 

speaks   continually  of  their   "furor."  asmad  who  did  not  acknowledge  God  and 

de  Trin.  e.  g.  i.  17.     Several  meanings  His  Word,  contr.  Gent.  fin.  also  23.  fin. 

are  implied  in  this  title ;  the  real  rea-  Hence  he  speaks  of  s.'&wAo^av/a.  contr. 

son  for  it  was  the  fanatical  fury  with  Gent.  10.  and  21  fin.      Again,  Incarn. 

which  it  spread  and  maintained  itself;  47.  he  speaks  of  the  mania  of  oracles, 

e.  g.  o  ptetvixo:  l^utrrvii  rov^iffrou}  en-  which    belongs    rather   to   the   former 

thusiastic.  Chrysost.  l.Hom.  sense  of  the  word.     Other  heresies  had 

iv.  3.  p.   124.     Thus  Athan.  contrasts  the  word  mania  applied  to  them,  e.  g. 

the  Arian  hatred  of  the  truth,  with  the  that  of  Valentinus  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  §. 

Epiphanius  speaks 
^xs-xxXia  of  the  Noe- 

mere  worldliness  of  the  Meletians,  supr.     70.    x«» 

p.  89.  note  m.     Hence  they  are  a<rs/3i?V,  of  the 

%t»t/Troftci%oi  ,  and  governed  by  xaxdvoiu  tians.   Hser.   57.   2.     JNazianzen  con- 

and     xKX9<p£oirtJv)i.        Again,     Socrates  trasts  the  sickness,  tores,  of  Sabellius 

speaks   of    it   as    a   flame   which    ra-  with  the  madness  of  Arius  ;  Orat.  20. 

vaged,  \vivipiroy  provinces  and  cities.  5.  but  Athan.  says,  ^y.mra.1*A(>tiof, 

i.  6.   And  Alexander  cries  out,  u«riev  putinrmt    31    Sa/3sXX/«;,    Orat.    iv.    25. 

vv$6u  KKI  u-ftiroav  ftctvictf  .  Theod.  Hist.  i.  But  this  note  might  be  prolonged  in- 

3.  p.  741.  vid.  also  pp.  735,  6.  747.  And  definitely. 

92  Impiety  of  the  Arians  towards  the  Fathers. 

COUNC.  himself  in  that  letter  in  his  own  way1,  yet  he  did  not  contradict 
^Jj1"'  the  Council's  terms,  but  even  charged  it  upon  the  Arians, 

SELEU.  that,  their  position  that  the  Son  was  not  before  His  gene- 
ration, was  not  even  consistent  with  His  being  before  Mary. 
What  then  will  they  proceed  to  teach  the  people  who  are 
under  their  teaching  ?  that  the  fathers  erred  ?  and  how  are 
they  themselves  to  be  trusted  by  those,  whom  they  teach  to 
disobey  their  Teachers  ?  and  with  what  faces  too  will  they  look 
upon  the  sepulchres  of  the  Fathers  whom  they  now  name 
heretics  ?  And  why  do  they  defame  the  Valentinians,  Phrygians, 
and  Manichees,  yet  give  the  name  of  saint  to  those  whom 
they  themselves  suspect  of  making  parallel  statements  ?  or  how 
can  they  any  longer  be  Bishops,  if  they  were  ordained  by 

1  P-  80-  persons  whom  they  accuse  of  heresy  l  ?    But  if  their  senti- 
note  r.  .....  111 

p.  82.     ments  were  wrong  and  their  writings  seduced  me  world,  then 

note  u.  iet  their  memory  perish  altogether  ;  when,  however,  you  cast 
out  their  books,  go  and  cast  out  their  relics  too  from  the 
cemeteries,  so  that  one  and  all  may  know  that  they  are  se- 

§.  14.  ducers,  and  that  you  are  parricides.       The  blessed  Apostle 

1  Cor.    approves  of  the  Corinthians  because,  he  says,  ye  remember 

me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  traditions  as  I  delivered  them 
to  you  ;  but  they,  as  entertaining  such  views  of  their  prede- 
cessors, will  have  the  daring  to  say  just  the  reverse  to  their 
flocks  :  "  We  praise  you  not  for  remembering  your  fathers, 
but  rather  we  make  much  of  you,  when  you  hold  not  their 
traditions."  And  let  them  go  on  to  cast  a  slur  on  their  own 
ignoble  birth,  and  say,  "  We  are  sprung  not  of  religious 
men  but  of  heretics."  For  such  language,  as  I  said  before, 

2  •*•£««•/-  is  consistent  in  those  who  barter2  their  Father's  fame  and 
Deer      their  own  salvation  for  Arianism,  and  fear  not  the  words  of 
§•  •*.       the  divine  proverb,  There  is  a  generation  that  curseth  their 
30°  11.  father,  and  the  threat  lying  in  the  Law  against  such. 

17.  They  then,  from  zeal  for  the  heresy,  are  of  this  obstinate 
temper  ;  you,  however,  be  not  troubled  at  it,  nor  take  their 
audacity  for  truth.  For  they  dissent  from  each  other,  and, 
whereas  they  have  revolted  from  their  Fathers,  are  not  of  one 
and  the  same  mind,  but  float  about  with  various  and  discordant 
changes.  And,  as  quarrelling  with  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  they 

u{  Miltiftv.  vid.  also  de  Deer.  §.  3.  us  Mi*.*i<rav  ad  Ep.  JEg.  5. 

TJteir  Variations.  i>8 

have  held  many  Councils  themselves,  and  have  published  afaith  CHAP. 
in  each  of  them,  and  have  stood  to  none1,  nay,  they  will  never  l — - — 
do  otherwise,  for  perversely  seeking,  they  will  never  find  that^g.  g?" 
Wisdom  which  they  hate.      I  have   accordingly  subjoined 
portions  both  of  Arius's  writings  and  of  whatever  else  I  could 
collect,  of  their  publications  in  different  Councils ;  whereby 
you  will  learn  to  your  surprise  with  what  object  they  stand 
out  against  an  Ecumenical2  Council  and  their  own  Fathers a  supr. 
without  blushing.  note  'Om 



Anus's  own  sentiments;  his  Thalia  and  Letter  to  S.  Alexander ;  corrections 
by  Eusebius  and  others;  extracts  from  the  works  of  Asterius  ;  letter  of 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem ;  first  Creed  of  Arians  at  the  Dedication  at 
Antioch ;  second,  Lucian's  on  the  same  occasion ;  third,  by  Theophronius ; 
fourth,  sent  to  Constans  in  Gaul ;  fifth,  the  M acrostic-he  sent  into  Italy ; 
sixth,  at  Sirmium;  seventh,  at  the  same  place;  and  eighth  also,  as 
given  above  in  Chapter  i ;  ninth,  at  Seleucia ;  tenth,  at  Constantinople  ; 
eleventh,  at  Antioch. 

COUNC.  1.  ARIUS  and  his  friends  thought  and  professed  thus:  "  God 
AND  '  made  the  Son  out  of  nothing,  and  called  Him  His  Son  ;"  "  The 

SELEU.  \yord  of  God  is  one  of  the  creatures;"  and  "  Once  He  was 
not;"  and  "  He  is  alterable ;  capable,  when  it  is  His  will,  of 
altering."  Accordingly  they  were  expelled  from  the  Church 

§.  15.  by  Alexander  of  blessed  memory.  However,  after  his  ex- 
pulsion, when  he  was  with  the  Eusebians,  he  drew  up  his 

r  us  sv  heresy  upon  paper,  and  imitating,  as  if  in  festivity  *,  no 
/?  grave  writer,  but  the  Egyptian  Sotades,  in  the  dissolute  tone 
of  his  metre3,  he  writes  at  great  length,  for  instance  as 
follows : — 

2.  Blasphemies  of  Arius. 

God  Himself  then,  in  His  own  nature,  is  ineffable  by  all  men. 
Equal  or  like  Himself  He  alone  has  none,  or  one  in  glory. 

a  Again,  Orat.  i.  §.  2 — 5.  he  calls  sius  should  say  the  Egyptian  Sotades, 

him  the  Sotadean  Arius  ;  and  speaks  of  and  again  in  Sent.  D.  G.     There  were 

the    "dissolute   manners,"    and   "the  two  Poets  of  the  name  ;  one  a  writer  of 

effeminate  tone,"  and   the  "  jests"  of  the  Middle  Comedy,  Athen.  Deipn.  vii. 

the   Thalia;    a   poem  which,  he   says  11;  but  the  other,  who  is  here  spoken 

shortly  before,    "  is    not    even    found  of,  was  a  native  of  Maronea  in  Crete, 

among   the    more  respectable    Greeks,  according  to   Suidas,   (in  voc.)  under 

but  among  those  only  who  sing  songs  the   successors  of  Alexander,    Athen. 

over   their   wine,   with   noise  and    re-  xiv.   4.     He   wrote    in    Ionic   metre, 

vel."  vid.   also  de    Sent.   D.  6.    Con-  which  was  of  infamous  name  from  the 

stantine   also    after    the  "Aftg   "A^m,  subjects  to  which  he  and  others  applied 

proceeds,  iviir%i<ru  $i  &6  n  yoi-v  'A$gobi-  it.  vid.  Suid.  ibid.  Some  read  "  Sota~ 

797?  <v*/X»'a.      Epiph.   Hser.   ti'J.   9   tin.  dices"   for   "  Socraticos,"  Juv.   Satir. 

Socrates  too  says  that  "  the  character  ii.    10.   vid.   also   Martial    Ep.  ii.  86. 

of  the  book  was  gross  and  dissolute."  The  characteristic  of  the  metre  was  the 

Hist.   i.  9.     The   Arian  Philostorgius  recurrence  of  the  same  cadence,  which 

tells  us  that  "  Arius  wrote  songs  for  the  virtually    destroyed    the    division    into 

*ea  and  for  the  mill  and  for  the  road,  verses,  Turneb.  in   Quinct.   i.  8.   and 

and  then  set  them  to  suitable  music,"  thus   gave    the   composition    that   lax 

Hist.  ii.  2.  Itis  remarkable  that  Athana-  and  slovenlv  air  to  which  Athanasius 

iiiffs  Thalia. 


And  Ingenerate  we  call  Him,  because  of  Him  who  is  generate  CHAP. 

by  nature.      **• 

We  praise  Him  as  Unoriginate  because  of  Him  who  has  an  origin. 
And  adore  Him  as  everlasting,  because  of  Him  who  in  time 

has  come  to  be. 

The  Unoriginate  made  the  Son  an  origin  of  things  generated ; 
And  advanced  Him  as  a  Son  to  Himself  by  adoption. 
He  has  nothing  proper  to  God  in  proper  subsistence. 
For  He  is  not  equal,  no,  nor  one  in  substance b  with  Him. 
Wise  is  God,  for  He  is  the  teacher  of  Wisdom0. 
There  is  full  proof  that  God  is  invisible  to  all  beings, 
Both  to  things  which  are  through  the  Son,  and  to  the  Son  He  is 


I  will  say  it  expressly,  how  by  the  Son  is  seen  the  Invisible  ; 
By  that  power  by  which  God  sees,  and  in  His  own  measure, 
The  Son  endures  to  see  the  Father,  as  is  lawful. 
Thus  there  is  a  Three,  not  in  equal  glories. 
Not  intermingling  with  each  other'1  are  their  subsistences. 
One  more  glorious  than  the  other  in  their  glories  unto  immensity. 
Foreign  from  the  Son  in   substance  is  the  Father,  for  He  is 


alludes.  Horace's  Ode,  "  Miserarnm 
est  nee  amori,  &c."  is  a  specimen  of  this 
metre,  and  some  have  called  itSotadic ; 
but  Bentley  shews  in  loc.  that  Sotades 
wrote  in  the  Ionic  a  majore,  and  that 
his  verse  had, somewhat  more  of  system 
than  is  found  in  the  Ode  of  Horace. 
Athensus  implies  that  all  Tonic  metres 
were  called  Sotadic,  or  that  Sotades 
wrote  in  various  Ionic  metres.  The 
Church  adopted  the  Doric  music,  and 
forbade  the  Ionic  and  Lydian.  The 
name  "  Thalia"  commonly  belonged  to 
convivial  songs  ;  Martial  contrasts  the 
"  lasciva  Thalia"  with  "  carmina  sanc- 
tiora,"  Epigr.  vii.  17.  vid.  Thaliarchus, 
"  the  master  of  the  feast,"  Horat.  Od. 
i.  9.  If  one  were  to  attempt  to  form  a 
judgment  on  the  nature  of  Anus's 
proceeding,  it  would  be  this  ;  that  he 
attempted  to  popularize  his  heresy  by 
introducing  it  into  the  common  employ- 
ments and  recreations  of  life,  and  having 
no  reverence,  he  fell  into  the  error  of 
modern  religionists,  who,  with  a  better 
creed,  sing  spiritual  songs  at  table,  and 
use  in  their  chapels  glees  and  opera 
airs.  This  would  be  more  offensive  of 
old  even  than  now,  in  proportion  to  the 
keener  sensibilities  of  the  South  and  the 
more  definite  ideas  which  music  seems 

to  have  conveyed  to  their  minds  ;  and 
more  especially  in  a  case  where  the 
metre  Arius  employed  had  obtained  so 
shocking  a  reputation,  and  was  asso- 
ciated in  the  minds  of  Christians  with 
the  deeds  of  darkness,  in  the  midst  of 
which  in  those  heathen  times  the  Church 
lived  and  witnessed. 

13  This  passage  ought  to  have  been 
added  to  note  t,  p.  35.  supr.  as  contain- 
ing a  more  direct  denial  of  the  o^oautriev ; 
so  incorrect  is  Gibbon's  assertion,  that 
on  Eusebius's  "  ingenuously  confessing 
that  it  was  incompatible  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  their  theological  system,  the 
fortunate  opportunity  was  eagerly  em- 
braced by  the  Bishops,"  as  if  they  were 
bent  at  all  hazards,  and  without  re- 
ference to  the  real  and  substantial  agree- 
ment or  disagreement  of  themselves  and 
the  Arians,  to  find  some  word  which 
might  accidentally  serve  to  exclude 
the  latter  from  communion. 

c  That  is,  Wisdom,  or  the  S->n,  is 
but  the  disciple  of  Him  who  is  Wise, 
and  not  the  attribute  by  which  He  is 
Wise,  which  is  what  the  Sabellians 
said,  vid.  Orat.  iv.  §.  2.  and  what  Arius 
imputed  to  the  Church. 

''  uviTriftinre},  that  is,  he  denied  the 
xipxwwit,  vid.  infra,  Orat.  iii.  3,  &c. 

Arms' 's  Thalia. 

COUNC.  Understand  that  the  One  was;  but  the  Two  was  not,  before 
ARIM.  it  was  in  existence. 

SELEU.  It  follow  sat  once  that,  though  the  Son  wasnot,  the  Father  was  God. 

Hence  the  Son,  not  being,  (for  He  existed  at  the  will  ofthe  Father,) 

Is  God  Only-begotten,  and  He  is  alien  from  either. 

Wisdom  existed  as  Wisdom  by  the  will  of  the  Wise  God. 

Hence  He  is  conceived  in  numberless  conceptions6. 

Spirit,  Power,  Wisdom,  God's  glory,  Truth,  Image,  and  Word. 

Understand  that  He  is  conceived  to  be  Radiance  and  Light. 

One  equal  to  the  Son,  the  Superior  is  able  to  generate. 

But  more  excellent,  or  superior,  or  greater,  He  is  not  able. 

At  God's  will  the  Son  is  what  and  whatsoever  He  is 

And  when  and  since  He  was,  from  that  time  He  has  subsisted 

from  God. 

He,  being  a  strong  God,  praises  in  His  degree  the  Superior. 

To  speak  in  brief,  God  is  ineffable  by  His  Son. 

For  He  is  to  Himself  what  He  is,  that  is,  unspeakable. 

So  that  nothing  which  is  called  comprehensiblef 

Does  the  Son  know  to  speak  about ;  for  it  is  impossible  for  Him 

To  investigate  the  Father,  who  is  by  Himself. 

For  the  Son  does  not  know  His  own  substance, 

For,  being  Son,  He  really  existed,  at  the  will  of  the  Father. 

What  argument  then  allows,  that  He  who  is  from  the  Father 

Should  know  His  own  parent  by  comprehension  ? 

For  it  is  plain  that,  for  That  which  hath  origin 

To  conceive  how  the  Unoriginate  is, 

Or  to  grasp  the  idea,  is  not  possible. 

§.  16.      3.  And  what  they  wrote  by  letter  to  Alexander  of  blessed 
memory,  the  Bishop,  runs  as  follows : — 

To  Our  Blessed  Pope8  and  Bishop,  Alexander,  the  Presbyters 
and  Deacons,  send  health  in  the  Lord. 

Our  faith  from  our  forefathers,  which  also  we  have  learned  from 

e  Ivrtvoictis,  that  is,  our  Lord's  titles 
are  but  names,  or  figures,  not  properly 
belonging  to  Him  but  only  existing  in 
oar  minds. 

f  xura  xxreiXn-^tv,  that  is,  there  is 
nothing  comprehensible  in  the  Father 
for  the  Son  to  know  and  declare.  On 
the  other  hand  the  doctrine  of  the  Ano- 
mceans,  who  in  most  points  agreed  with 
Arius,  was,  that  all  men  could  know 
Almighty  God  perfectly;  according  to 
Socrates,  who  says, "  Not  to  seem  to  be 

slandering,  listen  to  Eunomius  himself, 
what  words  he  dares  to  use  in  sophistry 
concerning  God  ;  they  run  thus: — '  God 
knows  not  of  His  substance  more  than 
we  do ;  nor  is  it  known  to  Him  more,  to 
us  less  ;  but  whatsoever  we  may  know  of 
it,  that  He  too  knows ;  and  what  again 
He,  that  you  will  find  without  any 
distinction  in  us.'  "  Hist.  iv.  7. 

I  Alexander  is  also  so  called,  Theod. 
Hist.  i.  4.  p.  749.  Athanasius,  Hieron. 
contr.  Joan.  4.  Heraclas,  also  of  Alex- 

Art. tiffs  letter  to  Alexander. 


thee,  Blessed  Pope,  is  this : — We  acknowledge  One  God,  alone  CHAP. 
Ingenerate,  alone  Everlasting,  alone  Unoriginate,  alone  True,  H. 
alone  having  Immortality,  alone  Wise,  alone  Good,  alone  Sovereign ; 
Judge,  Governor,  and  Providence  of  all,  unalterable  and  unchange- 
able, just  and  good,  God  of  Law  and  Prophets  and  New  Testament; 
who  generated  an  Only-begotten  Son  before  eternal  times,  through 
whom  He  has  made  both  the  ages  and  the  universe ;  and  generated 
Him,  not  in  semblance,  but  in  truth ;  and  that  He  made  Him 
subsist  at  His  own  will  unalterable  and  unchangeable;  perfect 
creature  of  God,  but  not  as  one  of  the  creatures ;  offspring,  but 
not  as  one  of  things  generated;  nor  as  Valentinus  pronounced  that 
the  offspring  of  the  Father  was  an  issue h;  nor  as  Manichaeus 
taught  that  the  offspring  was  a  portion  of  the  Father,  one  in  sub- 
stance1 ;  or  as  Sabellius,  dividing  the  One,  speaks  of  a  Son-and- 
Father k ;  nor  as  Hieracas,  of  one  torch  from  another,  or  as  a  lamp 
divided  into  two1 ;  nor  of  Him  who  was  before,  being  afterwards 
generated  or  new-created  into  a  Son'",  as  thou  too  thyself,  Blessed 

andria,  by  Dionysius  apud  Euseb.  Hist. 
vii.  7.  Epiphanius  of  Cyprus,  Hieron. 
Ep.  57,  2.  John  of  Jerusalem,  Hier. 
contr.  Joan.  4.  Cyprian  of  Carthage, 
Ep.  ap.  Cypr.  31.  Augustine  of  Hippo, 
Hier.  Ep.  141  init.  Lupus,  Pragmatius, 
Leontius,  Theoplastus,  Eutropius,  &c.  of 
Gaul,  by  Sidon.  Apoll.  Ep. vi.  Eutyches, 
Archimandrite,  Abraham  Abbot,  are 
called  by  the  same  name,  in  the  Acts  of 

h  "What  the  Valentinian  ir^e*.*  was, 
is  described  in  Epiph.  Hser.31,  13.  The 
^Eons,  wishing  to  shew  thankfulness  to 
God,  contributed  together  (i(>uvtffeip.ivavs) 
whatever  was  most  beautiful  of  each  of 
them,  and  moulding  these  several  ex- 
ceVencies  into  one,  formed  this  Issue, 
voepct*.tff0cu  v£o(fotiftot,  to  the  honour  and 
glory  of  the  Profound,  $v0os,  and  they 
called  this  star  and  flower  of  the  Ple- 
roma,  Jesus,  &c.  And  so  Tertullian 
u  a  joint  contribution,  ex  sere  collatitio, 
to  the  honour  and  glory  of  the  Father, 
ex  omnium  defloratione  constructum," 
contr.  Valent.  12.  Accordingly  Origen 
protests  against  the  notion  of  ^a/SaXn, 
Periarch.iv.  p.  190.  and  Athanasius  Ex- 
pos. $•  1 .  The  Arian  Asterius  too  considers 
*r^«/3«X«  to  introduce  the  notion  of  >rt»- 
voyeiix,  Euseb.  contr.  Marc.  i.  4.  p.2().vid. 
alsoEpiph.Heer.72.7.  Yet  Eusebius  uses 
the  word  «r£ef3aX/u<rtfa/.  Eccles.  Theol.  i.8. 
On  the  other  hand  Tertullian  uses  itwith 
a  protest  against  the  Valentinian  sense. 
Justin  has  *-§«j3Wm  yiwiftu,  Tryph. 
62.  And  Nazianzen  calls  the  Almighty 
Father  ^eftcXtuf  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Orat.  29.  2.  Arius  introduces  the  word 
here  as  an  argwnenhnn  ad  invidiam. 
Hil.  de  Trin.  vi.  9. 

'  The  Manichees  adopting  a  material 
notion  of  the  divine  substance,  con- 
sidered that  it  was  divisible,  and  that  a 
portion  of  it  was  absorbed  by  the  power 
of  darkness,  vid.  Appendix  to  Transla- 
tion of  St.  Augustine's  Confessions,  ii. 

k  oio-retraga.  This  word  is  made  the 
symbol  of  the  Noetians  or  Sabellians  by 
both  Catholics  and  Arians,  as  if  their 
doctrine  involved  or  avowed  Patripas- 
sianism,  or  that  the  Father  suffered. 
Without  entering  upon  the  controversy 
raised  by  Beausobre,  (Hist.  Manich.  iii. 
6.  §.  7,  &c.)  Mosheim,  (Ant.  Constant, 
ssec.  ii.  §.  68.  iii.  32.)  and  Lardner, 
(Cred.  part  ii.  ch.  41.)  on  the  subject, 
we  may  refer  to  the  following  passages 
for  the  use  of  the  term.  It  is  ascribed  to 
Sabellius,  Ammon.  in  Caten.  Joan.  i. 
1.  p.  14.  to  Sabellius  and  Marcellus, 
Euseb.  Eccl.  Theol.  ii.  5.  to  Marcel- 
lus, Cyr.  Hier.  Catech.  xv.  9.  also  iv. 
8.  xi.  16.  Epiph.  Hffir.  73.  11  fin.  to 
Sabellians,  Athan.  Expos.  F.  2.  and  7 
Can.  Constant,  and  Greg.  Nyssen.  contr. 
Euro.  xii.  p.  305.  to  certain  heretics, 
Cyril  Alex,  in  Joann.  p.  243.  to  Prax- 
eas  and  Montanus.  Mar.  Merc.  p.  128. 
to  Sabellius,  Csesar.  Dial.  i.  p.  550.  to 
Noetus,  Damasc.  Haer.  57. 

*  Hieracas  was  a  Manichs'an.  He 
compared  the  Two  Divine  Persons  to 
the  two  lights  of  one  lamp,  where  the 
oil  is  common  and  the  flame  double, 
thus  implying  a  substance  distinct  from 
Father  and  Son,  or  to  a  flame  divided 
into  two  by  (for  instance)  the  papyrus 
which  was  commonly  used  instead  of  a 
wick.  vid.  Hilar.  de  Trin.  vi.  12. 

m  Bull  considers  that  the  doctrine  of 
such  Fathers  ishere  spoken  of  asheld  that 


98  Arius  s  letter  to  Alexander. 

COUNC.  Pope,  in  the  midst  of  the  Church  and  in  Session  hast  often  con- 
ARIM.  demned;  but,  as  we  say,  at  the  will  of  God,  created  before  times 


and  before  ages,  and  gaining  life  and  being  from  the  Father,  who 
ELBU;  gave  subsistence  to  His  glories  together  with  Him.  For  the 
Father  did  not,  in  giving  to  Him  the  inheritance  of  all  things, 
deprive  Himself,  of  what  He  has  ingenerately  in  Himself;  for  He 
is  the  Fountain  of  all  things. 

Thus  there  are  Three  Subsistences.     And  God,  being  the  cause 

of  all  things,  is  Unoriginate  and  altogether  Sole,  but  the  Son  being 

generated  apart  from  time  by  the  Father,  and  being  created  and 

founded  before  ages,  was  not  before  His  generation,  but  being 

generated  apart  from  time  before  all  things,  alone  was  made  to 

subsist  by  the  Father.     For  He  is  not  eternal  or  co-eternal  or  co- 

ingenerate  with  the  Father,  nor  has  He  His  being  together  with  the 

Father,  as  some  speak  of  relations",  introducing  two  ingenerate 

origins,  but    God   is   before  all  things  as  being  a   One  and  an 

Origin  of  all.     Wherefore  also  He  is  before  the  Son  ;  as  we  have 

"Rom.     learned  also  from  Thy  preaching  in  the  midst  of  the  Church.     So 

11,  36.    far  then  as  from  God  He  has  being,  and  glories,  and  life,  and  all 

Ps.  110,  things  are  delivered  unto  Him,  in  such  sense  is  God  His  origin. 

3.         '  For  He  is  above  Him,  as  being  His  God  and  before  Him.     But 

John      if  the  terms  from  Him,  and  from  the  womb,  and  /  came  forth  from 

16,  28.    ihe  Father,  and  I  am  come1,  be  understood  by  some  to  mean  as  if  a 

"*"      part  of  Him,  one  in  substance,  or  as  an  issue,  then  the  Father  is 

Chrys°    according  to  them  compounded  and  divisible  and  alterable  and 

Horn.  3.  material,  and,  as  far  as  their  belief  goes,  has  the  circumstances  of 

Hebr.     a  body,  who  is  the  Incorporeal  God. 


Ha*  73      ^^s  *s   a  Part  °^  w^iat  ^e  Arians  cast  out  from  their 
si.  and  heretical  hearts. 


*  '  jy        4.  And  before  the  Nicene  Council  took  place,  similar  state- 

out  Lord's  ffvyxtnTK^xtris  to  create  the  Himself  became  the  Son  when  He  was 

world  was  a  yswusi;,  ano  certainly  such  made  man."    It  makes  it  more  likely 

language    as    that  of    Ilippol.   contr.  that  Marcellus  is  meant,  that  Asterius 

Noet.  §.   15.  favours   the   supposition,  seems  to  have  written  against  him  before 

But  one   class  of  the  Sabelhans  may  the   Nicene   Council,   and   that  Arius 

more  probably  be  intended,  who  held  in  other  of  his  writings  borrowed  from 

that  the  Word  became  the  Son  on  His  Asterius.  vid.  de  Decret.  §.  8. 
incarnation,    such   as   Marcellus,   vid.         n   Eusebius's   letter   to   Euphration, 

Euseb.  Eecles.  Theol.  i.  1.  contr.  Marc,  which  is  mentioned  just  after,  expresses 

ii.  3.   vid.    also    Eecles.    Theol.   ii.  9.  this  more  distinctly  —  "  If  they  co-exist, 

p.  114.  b.  prd'  ci>.*.oTt  «;u»jv  *.  r.  A.  how  shall  the  Father  be  Father  and  the 

Also  the  Macrostich  says,  "  We  ana-  Son  Son  ?  or  how  the  One  first,  the  Other 

thematize    those   who    call    Him    the  second?   and  the  One  ingenerate  and 

mere    Word     of    God,    not    allowing  the  Other   generate  P"    Acta  Cone.  7. 

Him  to  be  Christ  and  Son  of  God  before  p.  301.  The  phrase  TO.  <rtf>t  n  Bull  well 

all  ages,  but  from  the  time  He  took  on  explains  to  refer  to  the  Catholic  truth 

Him  our  flesh  ;  such  are  the  followers  that  the   Father  or  Son  being  named, 

of  Marcellus  and  Photinus,  &c."  infra,  the    Other   is   therein  implied  without 

§.  26.  Again,  Athanasius,  Orat.  iv.  15.  naming.   Defens.   F.   N.   iii.  9.  §.  4. 

says  that,  of  those  who  divide  the  Word  Hence  Arius,  in  his  Letter  to  Euse- 

from  the  Son,  some  called  our  Lord's  bius,  complains  that  Alexander   says, 

manhood  the  Son,  some  the  two  Nature*  ait  o  hot,  otii  o  vltf  ciftet  VTKTV£,  etftct,  vl»tt 

together,  and  some  said  "  that  the  Word  Theod.  Hist.  i.  4. 

Arian  statements  of  ULC  twoEusebii,  Athanasius  and  George.  99 

ments  were  made  by  Eusebius's  party,  Narcissus,  Patrophilus,  CHAP. 

Maris,   Paulinus,   Theodotus,  and  Athanasius    of  Nazarbi0. — 

And  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  wrote  over  and  above  to  Arius, 
to  this  effect,  "  Since  your  sentiments  are  good,  pray  that  all 
may  adopt  them  ;  for  it  is  plain  to  any  one,  that  what  has 
been  made  was  not  before  its  generation  ;  but  what  came  to 
be,  has  an  origin  of  being."  And  Eusebius  of  Ca3sarea  in 
Palestine,  in  a  letter  to  Euphration  the  Bishop,  did  not 
scruple  to  say  plainly  that  Christ  was  not  true  Godp.  And 
Athanasius  of  Nazarbi  uncloked  the  heresy  still  further, 
saying  that  the  Son  of  God  was  one  of  the  hundred  sheep. 
For  writing  to  Alexander  the  Bishop,  he  had  the  extreme 
audacity  to  say :  "  Why  complain  of  the  Arians,  for  saying, 
The  Son  of  God  is  made  as  a  creature  out  of  nothing,  and 
one  among  others  ?  For  all  that  are  made  being  represented 
in  parable  by  the  hundred  sheep,  the  Son  is  one  of  them. 
If  then  the  hundred  are  not  created  and  generated,  or  if  there 
be  beings  beside  that  hundred,  then  may  the  Son  be  not  a 
creature  nor  one  among  others  ;  but  if  those  hundred  are  all 
generate,  and  there  is  nothing  besides  the  hundred  save  God 
alone,  what  extravagance  do  the  Arians  utter,  when,  as  com- 
prehending and  reckoning  Christ  in  the  hundred,  they  say 
that  He  is  one  among  others  ?"  ;  And  George  who  now  is  in 
Laodicea,  and  then  was  presbyter  of  Alexandria,  and  was 
staying  at  Antioch,  wrote  to  Alexander  the  Bishop ;  "  Do 
not  complain  of  the  Arians,  for  saying,  *  Once  the  Son  of 
God  was  not,'  for  Esaias  came  to  be  son  of  Amos,  and,  whereas 
Amos  was  before  Esaias  came  to  be,  Esaias  was  not  before, 
but  came  to  be  afterwards."  And  he  wrote  to  the  Arians, 
"  Why  complain  of  Alexander  the  Pope1,  saying,  that  the  Son '  P.  96, 
is  from  the  Father  ?  for  you  too  need  not  fear  to  say  that  the  n° 
Son  was  from  God.  For  if  the  Apostle  wrote,  All  things  are  1  Cor. 

11, 12. 

0  Most  of  these  original  Arians  were  for  nothing  all  the  Ecclesiastical  Fa- 

ittackedin  a  work  of  Marcellus's  which  thers,  being  satisfied  with  no  one  but 

Eusebius  answers.  "  Now  he  replies  to  himself."  contr.  Marc.  i.  4.    There  is 

A.sterius,"  says  Eusebius,  "  now  to  the  little  to  be  said  of  Maris  and  Theodotus. 

2jreat  Eusebius,"  [of  Nicomedia,]  "  and  Nazarbi  is  more  commonly  called  Ana- 

:hen  he  turns  upon  that  man  of  God,  zarbus,  and  is  in  Cilicia. 
:hat  indeed  thrice  blessed  person  Pau-         P  Thisi.squoted, among otherpassages 

inus,  [of  Tyre.]  Thenhe  goes  towarwith  from  Eusebius,  in  the  7th  General  Coun- 

Drigen Next  he  marches  out  against  oil,  Act.  6.  p.  409.  "  The  Son  Himself 

Narcissus,  and  pursues  the  other  Eu-  is  God,  but  not  Very  God." 
'ebius,"  himself.  "  In  a  word,  he  counts 



Arian  statements  of  Asterius. 

Covxc.from  God,  and  it  is  plain  that  all  things  are  made  of  nothing, 
AND '  though  the  Son  too  is  a  creature  and  one  of  things  made, 

SELEU.  s{\\\  He  may  be  said  to  be  from  God  in  that  sense  in  which 
all  things  are  said  to  be  from  God."  From  him  then  the 
Arians  learned  to  pretend  to  the  phrase  from  God,  and  to  use 
it  indeed,  but  not  in  a  good  meaning.  And  George  himself 
was  deposed  by  Alexander  for  certain  reasons,  and  among 
them  for  manifest  irreligion  ;  for  he  was  himself  a  presbyter, 
as  has  been  said  before. 

§.  18.  5.  On  the  whole  then  such  were  their  statements,  as  if  they 
all  were  in  dispute  and  rivalry  with  each  other,  which  should 
make  the  heresy  more  irreligious,  and  display  it  in  a  more 
naked  form.  And  as  for  their  letters  I  have  them  not  at  hand, 
to  dispatch  them  to  you  ;  else  I  would  have  sent  you  copies ; 
but,  if  the  Lord  will,  this  too  I  will  do,  when  I  get  possession  of 
them.  And  one  Asterius q  from  Cappadocia,  a  many-headed 
Sophist,  one  of  the  Eusebians,  whom  they  could  not  advance 
into  the  Clergy,  as  having  done  sacrifice  in  the  former  persecu- 
tion in  the  time  of  Constantius's  grandfather,  writes,  with  the 
countenance  of  the  Eusebians,  a  small  treatise,  which  was  on 
a  par  with  the  crime  of  his  sacrifice,  yet  answered  their 
wishes ;  for  in  it,  after  comparing,  or  rather  preferring,  the 
locust  and  the  caterpillar  to  Christ,  and  saying  that  Wisdom 
in  God  was  other  than  Christ,  and  was  the  Framer  as  well  of 
Christ  as  of  the  world,  he  went  round  the  Churches  in  Syria 
and  elsewhere,  with  introductions  from  the  Eusebians,  that 
as  he  once  had  been  at  pains  to  deny  the  truth,  so  now  he 

9  Asterius  has  been  mentioned  above, 

S.  13.  note  b.  Philostorgius  speaks  of 
im  as  adopting  Semi-arian  terms  ;  and 
Acacius  gives  an  extract  from  him  con- 
taining them.  ap.  Epiph.  Hser.  72.  6. 
and  doubtless  both  he  (to  judge  by  his 
fragments)  and  Eusebius  write  with 
much  less  of  revolting  impiety  than 
others  of  their  party.  Thus  in  one  of 
the  extracts  made  in  the  text  he  dis- 
tinguishes after  the  manner  of  the  Semi- 
arians  between  the  ymwnxJi  and  the 
ltipu*V£yi*ii  ifou/us.  Again,  the  illus- 
tration of  the  Sun  in  another  much 
resembles  Euseb.  Demonstr.  iv.  5.  So 
does  his  doctrine,  supr.  de  Deer.  §.  8. 
that  the  Son  was  generated  to  create 
other  beings,  and  that,  because  they 
could  not  bear  the  hand  of  the  Al- 

mighty, also  vid.0rat.ii.24.  cf.Demonstr. 
iv.  4.  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  8. 13.  Prjep.  vii.  15. 
but  especially  Eusebius's  avowal,  "  not 
that  the  Father  was  not  able,  did  He 
beget  the  Son  ;  but  because  those  things 
which  were  made  were  not  able  to  sus- 
tain the  power  of  the  Ingenerate,  there- 
fore speaks  He  through  a  Mediator, 
contr.  Sabell.  i.  p.  9.  At  the  same 
time  if  he  is  so  to  be  considered, 
it  is  an  additional  proof  that  the 
Semi-arians  of  325  were  far  less  Ca- 
tholic than  those  of  359.  He  seems 
to  be  called  many-headed  with  an 
allusion  to  the  Hydra,  and  to  hid 
activity  in  the  Arian  cause  and  his 
fertility  in  writing.  He  wrote  com- 
ments on  Scripture. 

Arian  statements  of  Aster ius.  101 

might  make  free  with  it.     The  bold  man  intruded  himself  CHAP. 

into  forbidden  places,  and  seating  himself  in  the  place  of - — 

Clerks,  he  used  to  read  publicly  this  treatise  of  his,  in  spite 
of  the  general  indignation.  The  treatise  is  written  at  great 
length,  but  portions  of  it  are  as  follows : — 

"  For  the  Blessed  Paul  said  not  that  he  preached  Christ,  His, 
that  is,  God's,  ' proper  Power'  or  '  Wisdom/"  but  without  the 
article,    God's    Power    and    God's    Wisdom,    preaching    that    the  1  Cor. 
proper  power  of  God  Himself  was  distinct,  which  was  connatural  ^  24- 
and   co-existent  with    Him   ingenerately,  generative   indeed   of 
Christ,  creative  of  the  whole  world ;  concerning  which  he  teaches 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  thus,    The  invisible  things  of  Him  Rom.  J , 
from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  20. 
the  things  which  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  godhead. 
For  as  no  one  would  say  that  the  Godhead  there  mentioned  was 
Christ,  but   the    Father    Himself,   so,  as    1    think,  His   eternal 
power  is  also  not  the  Only-begotten  God,  but  the  Father  who 
begat  Him.     .And  he  tells  us  of  another  Power  and  Wisdom  of 
God,  namely,  that  which  is  manifested  through  Christ,  and  made 
known  through  the  works  themselves  of  His  Ministry. 

And  again  : — 

Although  His  eternal  Power  and  Wisdom,  which  truth  argues 
to  be  Unoriginate  and  Ingenerate,  would  appear  certainly  to  be  one 
and  the  same,  yet  many  are  those  powers  which  are  one  by  one 
created  by  Him,  of  which  Christ  is  the  First-born  and  Only- 
begotten.  All  however  equally  depend  upon  their  Possessor,  arid 
all  His  powers  are  rightly  called  His,  who  has  created  and  uses 
them ;  for  instance,  the  Prophet  says  that  the  locust,  which  became 
a  divine  punishment  of  human  sin,  was  called  by  God  Him- 
self, not  only  the  power  of  God,  but  the  great  power.  And 
the  blessed  David  too  in  most  of  the  Psalms,  invites,  not  Angels 
alone,  but  Powers  also  to  praise  God.  And  while  he  invites  them 
all  to  the  hymn,  He  presents  before  us  their  multitude,  and  is  not 
unwilling  to  call  them  ministers  of  God,  and  teaches  them  to  do 
His  will. 

6.  These  bold  words  against  the  Saviour  did  not  content  him,  §.19. 
but  he  went  further  in  his  blasphemies,  as  follows : 

The  Son  is  one  among  others ;  for  He  is  first  of  things  gene- 
rated, and  one  among  intellectual  natures;  and  as  in  things  visible 
the  sun  is  one  among  what  is  apparent,  and  it  shines  upon  the 

r  None  but  the  Clergy  might  enter  orders,  iigunxoi,  to  enter  the  Chancel 

the   Chancel,   i.   e.   in    Service    time,  and  then  communicate.   Can.  19.  vid. 

Hence  Theodosius  was  made  to  retire  also  44.  Cone.  t.  1.  p.  788,  789.     It  is 

by   St.   Ambrose.   Theod  v.  17.    The  doubtful  what  orders,  the  word  itguriicoi 

Council  of  Laodicea,  said  to  be   held  is   intended  to  include,  vid.  Biughara 

A.D.  372,  forbids  any  but  persons  in  Antiqu.  viii.  6.  $.  7. 

102  Arian  statements  of  Asterius. 

COUNC.  whole  world  according  to  the  command  of  its  Maker,,  so  the  Son, 
A  RIM.  being  one  of  the  intellectual  natures,  also  enlightens  and  shines 
SELEU  uPon  a^  tnat  are  *n  ^ie  intellectual  world. 

And  again  he  says,  Once  He  was  not,  writing  thus : — "  And 
before  the  Son's  generation,  the  Father  had  pre-existing 
knowledge  how  to  generate ;  since  a  physician  too,  before  he 

!p.  65,  cured,  had  the  science  of  curing1."  And  he  says  again :  "The 
m'  Son  was  created  by  God's  beneficent  earnestness;  and  the 
Father  made  Him  by  the  superabundance  of  His  Power."  And 
again :  "  If  the  will  of  God  has  pervaded  all  the  works  in 
succession,  certainly  the  Son  too,  being  a  work,  has  at  His 
will  come  to  be  and  been  made."  Now  though  Asterius  was 
the  only  person  to  write  all  this,  the  Eusebians  felt  the  like  in 
common  with  him. 

§ .  20.  7.  These  are  the  doctrines  for  which  they  are  contending;  for 
these  they  assail  the  Ancient  Council,  because  its  members 
did  not  propound  the  like,  but  anathematized  the  Arian 
heresy  instead,  which  they  were  so  eager  to  recommend.  On 
this  account  they  put  forward,  as  an  advocate  of  their  irreli- 
gion,  Asterius  who  sacrificed,  a  sophist  too,  that  he  might  not 
spare  to  speak  against  the  Lord,  or  by  a  shew  of  reason  to 
mislead  the  simple.  And  they  were  ignorant,  the  shallow 
men,  that  they  were  doing  harm  to  their  own  cause.  For  the 
ill  savour  of  their  advocate's  idolatrous  sacrifice,  betrayed 
still  more  plainly  that  the  heresy  is  Christ's  foe.  And  now 
again,  the  general  agitations  and  troubles  which  they  are 
exciting,  are  in  consequence  of  their  belief,  that  by  their 
numerous  murders  and  their  monthly  Councils,  at  length 
they  will  undo  the  sentence  which  has  been  passed  against 

2  vid.      the  Arian  heresy2.     But  here  too  they  seem  ignorant,  or  to 

§?32.  pretend  ignorance,  that  even  before  Nicasa  that  heresy  was 
held  in  detestation,  when  Artemas8  was  laying  its  foundations, 
and  before  him  Caiaphas's  assembly  and  that  of  the  Phari- 
sees his  contemporaries.  And  at  all  times  is  this  school  of 
Christ's  foes  detestable,  and  will  not  cease  to  be  hateful, 

*  Artemas  or  Artemon  was   one  of  now  be  called  Unitarianism,  or  that  our 

the   chiefs   of  a   school   of   heresy   at  Lord  was  a  mere  man.    Artemas  seems 

Rome  at  the  end  of  the   second  cen-  to  have  been  more  known  in  the  East; 

tury.     Theodotus  was  another,  and  the  at  least  is  more  frequently  mentioned  in 

more  eminent.    They  founded  separate  controversy  with  the  Ariang,  e.  g.  by 

pects.     Their  main  tenet  is  what  would  Alexander,  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  739. 

Council  of  Jerusalem .  1 03 

the  Lord's  Name  being  full  of  love,  and  the  whole  creation  CHAP. 
bending  the  knee,  and  confessing  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord, 

to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  11. 

8.  Yet  so  it  is,  they  have  convened  successive  Councils  §.21. 
against  that  Ecumenical  One !,  and  are  not  yet  tired  *.  After  the  *  P.  49, 
Nicene,  the  Eusebians  had  been  deposed ;  however,  in  course  n° 
of  time  they  intruded   themselves  without  shame  upon  the 
Churches,  and  began  to  plot  against  the  Bishops  who  with- 
stood them,  and  to  substitute  in  the  Church  men  of  their 
own  heresy.     Thus  they  thought  to  hold  Councils  at  their 
pleasure,  as  -having  those  who  concurred  with  them,  whom 
they  had  ordained  on  purpose  for  this  very  object2.     Accord-  2p-  84, 
ingly,  they    assemble   at  Jerusalem,  and   there   they   write110 
thus : — 

The  Holy  Council  assembled  in  Jerusalem  u  by  the  grace  of 
God,  to  the  Church  of  God  which  is  in  Alexandria,  and  to  all 
throughout  Egypt,  Thebais,  Libya,  and  Pentapolis,  also  to  the 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  throughout  the  world,  health  in 
the  Lord. 

To  all  of  us  who  have  come  together  into  one  place  from 
different  provinces,  to  the  great  celebration,  which  we  have  held 
at  the  consecration  of  the  Saviour's  Martyry x,  built  to  God  the 

1  It  will  be  observed,  that  the  Euse-  of  the  heretical  party,  vid.  supr.  p.  76, 
bian  or  court  party  from  341  to  358,  note  k.  as  Ammianus  in  p.  75,  note 
contained  in  it  two  element?,  the  more  h.  The  same  thing  is  meant  in  Nazi- 
religious  or  Semi-arian  which  tended  anzen 'swell-known  declaration  against 
to  Catholicism,  and  ultimately  coa-  Councils,  u  Neversaw  I  Council  brought 
lesced  with  it,  the  other  the  proper  to  a  useful  issue,  nor  remedying,  but 
Arian  or  Anonuean  which  was  essen-  rather  increasing  existing  evils."  Ep. 
tially  heretical.  During  the  period  130. 

mentioned,  it  wore  for  the  most  part  u  This  Council  at  Jerusalem  was  a 

the  Semi-arian  profession.     Athanasius  continuation  of  one  held   at  Tyre  at 

as  well  as  Hilary  does  justice  to  the  which  Athan.  was  condemned.    It  was 

Semi-arians  ;  but  Athanasius  does  not  very  numerously  attended  ;  by  Bishops, 

seem  to  have  known  or  estimated  the  (as  Eusebius  says,  Vit.  Const,  iv.  43.) 

quarrel  between  them  and  the  Arians  from    Macedonia,   Pannonia,   Thrace, 

as  fully  as  Hilary.     Accordingly,  while  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Arabia,  Egypt,  and 

the  former  is  bent  in  this  treatise  in  bring-  Libya.      One   account  speaks   of  the 

ing  out  the  great  fact  of  the  variations  of  number  as  being  above  200.     He  says 

the  heretical  party,  Hilary,  wishing  to  that"  an  innumerable  multitude  from  all 

commend  the  hopeful  Semi-arians  to  the  provinces  accompanied  them."    It  was 

Gallic  Church,  makes  excuses  for  them,  the  second  great  Council  in  Constan- 

ou  the  ground  of  the  necessity  of  expla-  tine's  reign,  and  is  compared  by  Euse- 

nations  of  the  Nicene  formulary,  "  ne-  bius  (invidiously)  to  the  Nicene,  c.  47. 

cessitatem  hanc    furor    hereticus   im-  At  this   Council   Arius  was    solemnly 

ponit."  Hil.  de  Syn.  63.  vid.  also  62.  received,  as  the  Synodal  Letter  goes  on 

and  28.     At  the   same   time,    Hilary  to  say. 

himself  bears  witness  quite  as  strongly  x  This  Church,  called  the  Martyry 

as  Athan.  to  the  miserable  variations  or  Testimony,  was  built  over  the  spot 

104  Arius  re-admitted  at  Jerusalem. 

COUNC.  King  of  all,  and  to  His  Christ,  by  the  zeal  of  the  most  religious 
ATIIM.  Emperor  Constantine,  the  grace  of  Christ  provided  a  higher  grati- 
ficati°nJ  m  tne  conduct  of  that  most  religious  Emperor  himself, 
who,  by  letters  of  his  own,  banishing  from  the  Church  of  God 
all  jealousy,  and  driving  far  away  all  envy,  by  means  of  which, 
the  members  of  Christ  had  been  for  a  long  season  in  dissention, 
exhorted  us,  what  was  our  duty,  with  open  and  peaceable 
mind  to  receive  Arius  and  his  friends,  whom  for  a  while  jealousy 
which  hates  virtue  had  contrived  to  expel  from  the  Church.  And 
the  most  religious  Emperor  bore  testimony  in  their  behalf  by 
his  letter  to  the  exactness  of  their  faith,  which,  after  inquiry  of 
them,  and  personal  communication  with  them  by  word  of  mouth, 
he  acknowledged,  and  made  known  to  us,  subjoining  to  his  own 
letters  their  orthodox  teaching  in  writing7,  which  we  all  con- 
fessed to  be  sound  and  ecclesiastical.  And  he  reasonably  recom- 
mended that  they  should  be  received  and  united  to  the  Church 
of  God,  as  you  will  know  yourselves  from  the  transcript  of  the 
same  Epistle,  which  we  have  transmitted  to  your  reverences.  We 
believe  that  yourselves  also,  as  if  recovering  the  very  members  of 
your  own  body,  will  experience  great  joy  and  gladness,  in  ac- 
knowledging and  recovering  your  own  bowels,  your  own  brethren 
and  fathers;  since  not  only  the  Presbyters  who  are  friends 
of  Arius  are  given  back  to  you,  but  also  the  whole  Christian 
people  and  the  entire  multitude,  which  on  occasion  of  the  afore- 
said men  have  a  long  time  been  in  dissension  among  you.  More- 
over it  were  fitting,  now  that  you  know  for  certain  what  has 
passed,  and  that  the  men  have  communicated  with  us  and  have 
been  received  by  such  a  Holy  Council,  that  you  should  with  all 
readiness  hail  this  your  coalition  and  peace  with  your  own 
members,  specially  since  the  articles  of  the  faith  which  they  have 
published  preserve  indisputable  the  universally  confessed  aposto- 
lical tradition  and  teaching. 

§.  22.      9.  This  was  the  first  of  their  Councils,  and  in  it  they  were 
speedy  in  divulging  their  views,  and  could  not  conceal  them. 

made    sacred    by    our    Lord's    death,  ten  from  Him  before  all  the  ages  God 

burial,  and  resurrection,  in  commemo-  and  Word,  through  whom    all  things 

ration   of  the   discovery  of  the   Holy  were  made,  both  in  the  heavens  and 

Cross,    and   has   been   described  from  upon  earth;"  afterwards  it  professes  to 

Eusebius  in  the  preface  to  the  Trans-  have  "  received  the  faith  from  the  holy 

lation  of  S.  Cyril's  Catechetical  Lee-  Evangelists,"  and  to  believe"  as  all  the 

tures,  p.  xxiv.  It  was  begun  A.  T).  326,  Catholic  Church  and  as  the  Scriptures 

and  dedicated  at  this  date,  A.D.  335,  teach."      The  Synodal  Letter  in   the 

on  Saturday  the    13th   of  September,  text   adds  "  apostolical  tradition  and 

The  14th  however  is  the  feast  of  the  teaching."     Arius  might  safely  appeal 

Exaltatio  S.  Crucis  both  in  East  and  to  Scripture  and  the  Church  for  a  creed 

"West.  which  did  not  specify  the  point  in  con- 

y  This  is  supposed  to  be  the  same  troversy.     In  his  letter  to  Eusebius  of 

Confession  which  is  preserved  by  Socr.  Nicomedia  before  the  Nicene  Council 

i.  26.  and  Soz.  ii.  27.  and  was  presented  where    he    does    state   the   distinctive 

to  Constantine  by  Arius  in  330.     It  articles  of  his  heresy  he  appeals  to  him 

says  no  more  than  a  And  in  the  Lord  as  a  fellow  pupil  in  the  School  of  Lu- 

Jesus  Christ  His  Son,  who  was  begot-  cian,  not  to  tradition.  Theod.  Hist.  i.4. 

Council  at  Antioch,  and  first  creed  of  Eusebians.     105 

For  when  they  said  that  they  had  banished  all  jealousy,  and,  CHAP. 
after  the  expulsion  of  Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  — • — 
recommended  the  reception  of  Arius  and  his  friends,  they 
shewed,  that  their  measures  against  Athanasius  himself 
then,  and  before  against  all  the  other  Bishops  who  withstood 
them,  had  for  their  object  their  receiving  Anus's  party,  and 
introducing  the  heresy  into  the  Church.  But  although  they 
had  approved  in  this  Council  all  Anus's  malignity,  and  had 
ordered  to  receive  his  party  into  communion,  as  they  had  set 
the  example,  yet  feeling  that  even  now  they  were  short  of 
their  wishes,  they  assembled  a  Council  at  Antioch  under 
colour  of  the  so-called  Dedication z ;  and,  since  they  were  in 
general  and  lasting  odium  for  their  heresy,  they  publish 
different  letters,  some  of  this  sort,  and  some  of  that;  and 
what  they  wrote  in  one  letter  was  as  follows : — 

We  have  not  been  followers  of  Arius, — how  could  Bishops,  ist  Con- 
such  as  we,  follow  a  Presbyter  ? — nor  did  we  receive  any  other  fession 
faith  beside  that  which  has  been  handed  down  from  the  begin- ^  Istof 
ninga.    But,  after  taking  on  ourselves  to  examine  and  to  verify  his  tjoch 
faith,  we  have  admitted  him  rather  than  followed  him  j   as  you  A.  D! 
will  understand  from  our  present  avowals,  341. 

For  we  have  been  taught  from  the  first,  to  believe  in  one 
God,  the  God  of  the  Universe,  the  Framer  and  Preserver  of  all 
things  both  intellectual  and  sensible. 

And  in  One  Son  of  God,  Only-begotten,  existing  before  all 
ages,  and  being  with  the  Father  who  begat  Him,  by  whom  all 
things  were  made,  both  visible  and  invisible,  who  in  the  last 
days  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father  came  down, 

1  i.  e.  the  dedication  of  the  Domini-  though  not  as /row  this  Council,  which 

cum   Aureum,   which    had    been    ten  took  at  least  some  of  them  from  more 

years  in  building,  vid.  the  description  ancient  sources.     It  is  remarkable  that 

of  it  in  Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iii.  50.    This  S.  Hilary  calls  this  Council  an  assembly 

Council    is   one   of    great    importance  of  Saints,  de  Syn.  32.   but   it   is  his 

in  the  history,  though  it  was  not   at-  course   throughout    to    look    at    these 

tended  by  more  than  90  Bishops  ac-  Councils   on   their   hopeful    side.   vid. 

cording  to  Ath.  infr.  or  97  according  note  t. 

to  Hilary  de  Syn.  28.     The  Eusebians         a  The  Council  might  safely  appeal 

had  written  to  the  Roman  see  against  to  antiquity,  since,  with  Arius  in  the 

Athan.   and    eventually   called    on   it  Confession   noticed  supr.  note  y,  they 

to  summon  a  Council.      Accordingly,  did  not  touch  on  the  point  in  dispute. 

Julius  proposed  a  Council  at  Rome  ;  The  number  of  their  formularies,  three 

they  refused  to  come,  and  instead  held  or  four,  shews  that  they  had  a  great 

this  meeting  at  Antioch.     Thus  in  a  difficulty  in   taking   any   view   which 

certain  sense  it  is  a  protest  of  the  East  would   meet  the   wishes   and   express 

against  the  Pope's  authority,    Twenty-  the  sentiments  of  one  and  all.    The  one 

five    Canons    are    attributed    to    this  that  follows,  which  is  their  first,  is  as 

Council,   which    have    been    received  meagre  as  Arius's,  quoted  note  y. 
into  the  Code  of  the  Catholic  Church, 


Creed  of  the  Dedication  at  Antioch, 

COUNC.  and  took  flesh  of  the  Virgin,  and  fulfilled  all  His  Father's  will ; 
ARIM.  an(j  suffered  and  rose  again,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
SELEU  s^ttetn  on  tne  rignt  nanc^  °f  tne  Father,  and  cometh  again  to 

judge  quick  and  dead,  and  remaineth  King  and  God  unto  all 


And  we  believe  also  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  if  it  be  necessary 
to  add,  we  believe  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and 
the  life  everlasting. 

§.  23.  10.  Here  follows  what  they  published  next  at  the  same 
Dedication  in  another  Epistle,  being  dissatisfied  with  the 
first,  and  devising  something  newer  and  fuller : 

iid  Con- 
or  2d 
of  An- 
A.  D. 

1  Vid. 





We  believe b,  conformably  to  the  evangelical  and  apostolical 
tradition,  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Framer,  and 
Maker,  and  Preserver  of  the  Universe,  from  whom  are  all 

And  in  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  His  Only-begotten  Son,  God, 
by  whom  are  all  things,  who  was  begotten  before  all  ages  from 
the  Father,  God  from  God,  whole  from  whole,  sole  from  sole  >, 
perfect  from  perfect,  King  from  King,  Lord  from  Lord,  Living 
Word,  Living  Wisdom,  true  Light,  Way,  Truth,  Resurrection, 
Shepherd,  Door,  both  unalterable  and  unchangeable0;  unvarying 
image d  of  the  Godhead,  Substance,  Will,  Power,  and  Glory  of  the 

b  This  formulary  is  that  known  as 
the  Formulary  of  the  Dedication.  It 
is  quoted  as  such  by  Socr.  ii.  39,  40. 
Soz.  iv.  15.  and  infr.  $.  29.  Sozomen 
says  that  the  Eusehians  attributed  it  to 
Lucian,  alleging  that  they  had  found  a 
copy  written  by  his  own  hand  ;  but  he 
decides  neither  for  or  against  it  him- 
self. Hist.  iii.  5.  And  the  Auctor  de 
Trinitate,  (in  Theocloret's  works,  t.  5.) 
allows  that  it  is  Lucian's,  but  interpo- 
lated. Dial.  iii.  init.  vid.  Routh,  Reliqu. 
Sacr.  vol.  iii.  p.  294 — 6.  who  is  in  favour 
of  its  genuineness;  as  are  Bull,  Cave, 
and  S.  Basnage.  Tillemont  and  Con- 
stant take  the  contrary  side ;  the  latter 
observing  (ad  Hilar.  de  Synod.  28.)  that 
Athanasius,  infr.  §.  36,  speaks  of  parts 
of  it  as  Acacius's,  and  that  Acacius 
attributes  its  language  to  Asterius. 
The  Creed  is  of  a  much  higher  cast  of 
doctrine  than  the  two  former,  (§.  22. 
and  note  y,)  containing  some  of  the 
phrases  which  in  the  fourth  century 
became  badges  of  Semi-arianism. 

c  These  strong  words  and  those  which 
follow,  whether  Lucian's  or  not,  mark  the 
great  difference  between  this  confession 
and  the  foregoing.  It  would  seem  as 
if  the  Eusebians  had  at  first  tried  the 

assembled  Bishops  with  a  negative 
confession,  and  finding  that  they  would 
not  accept  it,  had  been  forced  upon  one 
of  a  more  orthodox  character.  It  is 
observable  too  that  even  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem,  but  indirectly  received 
the  Confession  on  which  they  re- 
admitted Arius,  though  they  gave  it 
a  real  sanction.  The  words  "  un- 
alterable and  unchangeable"  are  formal 
Anti-arian  symbols,  as  the  r^sa-re*  or 
alterable  was  one  of  the  most  charac- 
teristic part  of  Arius's  creed,  vid.  Orat. 
i.  §.  35,  &c. 

d  On  awa^XXaxTaf  tixuv  xatr  evtri'etVj 
which  was  synonymous  with  ifttuvfiatj 
vid.  int'r.  §  38.  and  one  of  the  symbols  of 
Semi-arianism,  (not  as  if  it  did  not  ex- 
press truth,  but  because  it  marked  the 
limit  of  Semi  -arian  approximation  to  the 
absolute  truth,)  something  has  been  said, 
supr.  p.  35,  note  u.  It  was  in  order  to 
secure  the  true  sense  of  «-r«£«XX«xrtf» 
that  the  Council  adopted  the  word 
oftooufftav.  'AcTajaAXaxrav  is  accordingly 
used  as  a  latniliar  word  by  Athan. 
de  Deer.  supr.  $.  20.  24.  Orat.Tii. 
§.  36.  contr.  Gent.  41.  46  fin.  Philo- 
storgius  ascribing  it  to  Asterius,  and 
Acacius  quotes  a  passage 

from    his 

being  second  Creed  of  Eusebians,  Semi-arian.       107 

Father;  the  first  born  of  every  creature,  who  was  in  the  beginning  CHAP. 
with  God,  God  the  Word,  as  it  is  written  in  the  Gospel,  and  the  1L 
Word  was  God ;  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  and  in  whom 
all  things  consist ;  who  in  the  last  days  descended  from  above, 
and  was  born  of  a  Virgin  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  was 
made  Man,  Mediator6  between  God  and  man,  and  Apostle  of  our 
faith,  and  Prince  of  life,  as  He  says,  /  came  down  from  heaven, 
not  io  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me;  who 
suffered  for  us  and  rose  again  on  the  third  day,  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and 
is  coming  again  with  glory  and  power,  to  judge  quick  and  dead. 
And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  given  to  those  who  believe  for 
comfort,  and  sanctification,  and  initiation,  as  also  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  enjoined  His  disciples,  saying,  Go  ye,  leach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  that  of  Father  being  truly  Father,  and  of  Son 
being  truly  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  being  truly  Holy  Ghost, 
the  names  not  being  given  without  meaning  or  effect,  but  de- 
noting accurately  the  peculiar  subsistence,  rank,  and  glory  of 
each  that  is  named,  so  that  they  are  three  in  subsistence,  and  in 
agreement  one f. 

writings  containing  it.  (vid.  supr.  note 
q.)  Acacius  at  the  same  time  forcibly 
expresses  what  is  meant  by  the  word, 

TO  txTtiTov  xcei  Tittv-s  Ixft.a.'yiTev  TOU 
ftov  vrtt  autr'nus  ;  and  S.  Alexander 
before  him,  TJJV  xxra,  -ruvree,  oftei- 
ertjret  alrau  ix  (fiifftws  KirofjiaQdfiivo;. 

Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  (as,  in  the  legend,  the 
impression  of  our  Lord's  face  on  the 
cloth  at  His  crucifixion.)  Xagaxr^, 
Hebr.  i.  3.  contains  the  same  idea. 
u  An  image  not  inanimate,  not  framed 
by  the  hand,  nor  work  of  art  and 
imagination,  (Ir/vwajJ  but  a  living 
image,  yea,  the  very  life  (alrooutree,) ; 
ever  preserving  the  unvarying  (TO  az-a- 
£aAXr/,xT«v),  not  in  likeness  of  fashion, 
but  in  its  very  substance."  Basil,  contr. 
Eunom.  i.  18.  The  Auctor  de  Trinitate 
says,  speaking  of  the  word  in  this  very 
creed,  u  Will  in  nothing  varying  from 
will  (a.<jru.pci\\K,x.Te;}  is  the  same  will ; 
and  power  nothing  varying  from  power 
is  the  same  power ;  and  glory  nothing 
varying  from  glory  is  the  same  glory." 
The  Macedonian  replies  "  Unvarying 
I  say,  the  same  I  say  not."  Dial.  iii.  p. 
993.  Athan.  de  Deer.  1.  c.  seems  to  say 
the  same.  That  is,  in  the  Catholic 
sense,  the  image  was  not  «<ra£«A.A.«xTas, 
if  there  was  any  difference,  unless  He 
was  one  with  Him  of  whom  He  was 
the  image,  vid.  Hil.  supra,  p.  76.  note  i. 
e  This  statement  perhaps  is  the  most 
Catholic  in  the  Creed;  not  that  the 
former  are  not  more  explicit  in  them- 

selves, or  that  in  a  certain  true  sense 
our  Lord  may  not  be  called  a  Mediator 
before  He  became  incarnate,  but  be- 
cause the  Arians,  even  Eusebius,  seem 
to  have  made  His  mediatorship  consist 
essentially  in  His  divine  nature, whereas 
this  Confession  speaks  of  our  Lord  as 
made  Mediator  when  He  came  in  the 
flesh.  On  the  other  hand,  Eusebius, 
like  Philo  and  the  Platonists,  considers 
Him  as  made  in  the  beginning,  the 
"  Eternal  Priest  of  the  Father," 
Demonst.  v.  3.  de  Laud.  C.  p.  503 
fin.  "  an  intermediate  divine  power," 
p.  525.  "  mediating  and  joining  gene- 
rated substance  to  the  Ingenerate,"  p. 
528.  vid.  infr.  pp.  115.  and  119.  notes 
f.  and  o. 

'  This  phrase,  which  is  of  a  more 
Arian  character  than  any  other  part  of 
the  Confession,  is  justified  by  S.  Hilary 
on  the  ground,  that  when  the  Spirit  is 
mentioned,  agreement  is  the  best  sym- 
bol of  unity,  de  Syn.  32.  It  is  pro- 
tested against  in  the  Sardican  Con- 
fession. Theod.  Hist.  ii.  6.  p.  846. 
A  similar  passage  occurs  in  Origen, 
contr.  Cels.  viii.  12.  to  which  Huet. 
Origen.  ii.  2.  n.  3.  compares  Nova- 
tian.  de  Trin.  22.  The  Arians  insisted 
on  the  "  oneness  in  agreement"  as  a 
fulfilment  of  such  texts  as  "  I  and  my 
Father  are  one ;"  but  this  subject  will 
come  before  us  in  Orat.  iii.  §.  10.  vid, 
infr.  §.  48. 

108  Creed  of  Theophronius,  at  Antioch, 

COUNC.      Holding  then  this  faith,  and  holding  it  in  the  presence  of  God 

A  RIM.  and  Christ,  from  beginning  to  end,  we  anathematize  every  here- 

AXD    tjcaj  heterodoxy  g.    And  if  any  teaches,  beside  the  sound  and  right 

k  ELEU-  faith  of  the  Scriptures,  that  time,  or  season,  or  age  h,  either  is  or 

has  been  before  the  generation  of  the  Son,  be  he  anathema.     Or 

1  vid.      if  any  one  says,  that  the  Son  is  a  creature  as  one  of  the  creatures  ', 

P-  10»     or  an  offspring  as  one  of  the  offsprings,  or  a  work  as  one  of  the 

3  u*    works,  and  not  the  aforesaid  articles  one  after  another,  as  the 

divine  Scriptures  have  delivered,  or  if  he  teaches  or  preaches 

beside  what  we  received,  be  he  anathema.     For  all  that  has  been 

delivered  in  the  divine  Scriptures,  whether  by  Prophets  or  Apo- 

stles, do  we  truly  and  conscientiously  both  believe  and  follow1. 

§.  24.  11.  And  one  Theophronius  k,  Bishop  of  Tyana,  put  forth 
before  them  all  the  following  statement  of  his  personal  faith. 
And  they  subscribed  it,  accepting  the  faith  of  this  man  :  — 

iiidCon-      God  knows,  whom   I  call  as  a  witness  upon  my  soul,  that  so 
orl'c       *  believe:—  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Creator  and  Maker 


of  An-    °^  ^le  Universe,  from  whom  are  all  things  : 

tioch,          And    in    His    Only-begotten    Son,    God,   Word,    Power,    and 

A.D.      Wisdom,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things; 

341  .       wno  was  begotten  from  the  Father  before  the  ages,  perfect  God 

from  perfect  God  !  and  being  with  God  in  subsistence,  and  in  the 

2  The  whole  of  these  anathemas  are  reason  for  insisting  on  it  in  the  previous 

an  Eusebian  addition.  The  Council  centuries  had  been  the  Sabellian  doc- 

anathematizes  "  every  heretical  hete-  trine,  which  considered  the  title  "Word" 

rodoxy  ;"  not,  as  Athanasius  observes,  when  applied  to  our  Lord  to  be  ade- 

supra,  §.  7.  the  Arian.  cjuately  explained  by  the  ordinary  sense 

h  The  introduction  of  these  words  of  the  term,  as  a  word  spoken  by  us. 

"  time,"  "  age,"  &c.  allows  them  still  to  vid.  on  the  \oyot  ifotoxos  infr. 

not;"  for  our  Lord  was,  as  they  held,  sisted  on  His  <ro  r'&tiot,  perfection, 

before  time,  but  still  created.  which  became  almost  synonymous 

1  This  emphatic  mention  of  Scrip-  with  His  personality.  Thus  the 

ture  is  also  virtually  an  Arian  evasion  ;  Apollinarians,  e.  g.  denied  that  our 

to  hold  certain  truths,  "  as  Scripture  Lord  was  perfect  man,  because  His 

has  delivered,"  might  either  mean  person  was  not  human.  Athan.  contr. 

because  and  as  in  fact,  or  so  far  as,  and  Apoll.  i.  2.  Hence  Justin,  Tatian, 

admitted  of  a  silent  reference  to  them-  are  earnest  in  denying  that  our  Lord 

selves,  as  interpretators  of  Scripture.  was  a  portion  divided  from  the  Di\ine 

k  Nothing  is  known  of  Theophronius;  Substance,  ou  xnr  KvoTopw,  &c.  &c. 

his  Confession  is  in  great  measure  a  Just.  Tryph.  128.  Tatian.  contr.  Grsec. 

relapse  into  Arianism  proper;  that  is,  5.  And  Ath^n.  condemns  the  notion 

as  far  as  the  absence  of  characteristic  of  "  the  Aoya;  l»  ru  6<.n  areXJu, 

symbols  is  a  proof  of  a  wish  to  intro-  yiwvOtis  riteios.  Orat.  iv.  11.  The 

duce  the  heresy.  The  phrase  "  perfect  Arians  then,  as  being  the  especial 

God"  will  be  mentioned  in  the  next  opponents  of  the  Sabellians,  insisted 

note.  on  nothing  so  much  as  our  Lord's  being 

1  Tt  need  scarcely  be  said,  that  "  per-  a  real,  living,  substantial,  Word.  vid. 

feet  from  perfect"  is  a  symbol  on  which  Eusebius  passim.  "  The  Father," 

the  Catholics  laid  stress,  Athan.  Orat.  says  Acacius  against  Marcellus,  "  be- 

ii.  35.  Epiph.  Hser.  76.  p.  945.  but  it  gat  the  Only-begotten,  alone  alone,  and 

admitted  of  an  evasion.  An  especial  perfect  perfect  ;  for  there  is  nothing 

being  tltird  ('reed  of  Eusebiits,  negative. 


last  days  descended,  and  was  born  of  the  Virgin  according  to  the  CHAP. 
Scriptures,  and  was  made  man,  and  suffered,  and  rose  again  from      L 
the  dead,  and  ascended  into  the  heavens,  and  sat  down  on  the 
right  hand  of  His  Father,   and   cometh  again  with  glory  and 
power  to  judge  quick  and  dead,  and  remaineth  for  ever : 

And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Paraclete,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
which  also  God  promised  by  His  Prophet  to  pour  out  upon  His 
servants,  and  the  Lord  promised  to  send  to  His  disciples :  which 
also  He  sent,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  witness. 

But  if  any  one  teaches,  or  holds  in  his  mind,  aught  beside  this 
faith,  be  he  anathema;  or  with  Marcellus  of  Ancyra'",  or  Sabellius, 
or  Paul  of  Samosata,  be  he  anathema,  both  himself  and  those  who 
communicate  with  him. 

12.  Ninety  Bishops  met  at  the  Dedication  under  the  Con-  §.  25. 
sulate  of  Marcellinus  and  Probinus,  in  the  14th  of  the  Indic- 
tion",  Constantiusthe  most  irreligious1  being  present.    Having '  p.  90, 
thus  conducted  matters  at  Antioch  at  the  Dedication,  thinking  no 
that  their  composition  was  deficient   still,  and  fluctuating 
moreover  in    their  own  views,    again  they  draw  up    afresh 
another  formulary,  after  a  few  months,  professedly  concerning 
the   faith,  and  despatch   Narcissus,  Maris,  Theodorus,  and 

imperfect  in  the  Father,  wherefore 
neither  is  there  in  the  Son,  but  the 
Son's  perfection  is  the  genuine  offspring 
of  His  perfection,  and  superperfection." 
ap.  Epiph.  Hser.  72.  7 .  TtA«/»f  then  was  a 
relative  word,  varying  with  the  subject- 
matter,  vid.  Damasc.  F.  O.  i.  8.  p.  138. 
and  when  the  Arians  said  that  our 
Lord  was  perfect  God,  they  meant, 
"  perfect,  in  that  sense  in  which  He 
is  God" — i.  e.  as  a  secondary  divi- 
nity— Nay,  in  one  point  of  view  they 
would  use  the  term  of  His  divine 
Nature  more  freely  than  the  Catholics 
sometimes  had.  For,  Hippolytus,  e.  g. 
though  of  course  really  holding  His 
perfection  from  eternity  as  the  Son, 
yet  speaks  of  His  condescension  in 
coming  upon  earth  as  a  kind  of  com- 
pletion of  His  Sonship,  He  becoming 
thus  a  Son  a  second  time ;  whereas  the 
Arians  holding  no  real  condescension 
or  assumption  of  a  really  new  state, 
could  not  hold  that  our  Lord  was  in  any 
respect  essentially  other  than  He  had 
been  before  the  incarnation.  "  Nor 
was  the  Word,"  says  Hippolytus, 
"  before  the  flesh  and  by  Himself, 
perfect  Son,  though  being  perfect  Word, 

Only-begotten  ;  nor  could  the  flesh  sub- 
sist by  itself  without  the  Word,  because 
that  in  the  Word  it  has  its  consistence : 
thus  then  He  was  manifested  One  per- 
fect Son  of  God."  contr.  Noet.  15. 

m  Marcellus  wrote  his  work  against 
Asterius  in  335,  the  year  of  the  Arian 
Council  of  Jerusalem,which  at  once  took 
cognizance  of  it,  and  cited  Marcellus  to 
appear  before  them.  The  same  year  a 
Council  held  at  Constantinople  con- 
demned and  deposed  him,  about  the  time 
that  Arius  came  thither  for  re-admission 
into  the  Church.  From  that  time  his 
name  is  frequently  introduced  into  the 
Arian  anathemas,  vid.  Macrostich,  §. 
26.  By  adding  those  "  who  communicate 
with  him,"  the  Eusebians  intended  to 
strike  at  the  Roman  see,  which  had 
acquitted  Marcellus  in  a  Council  held 
in  June  of  the  same  year. 

n  The  commencement  and  the  origin 
of  this  mode  of  dating  are  unknown. 
It  seems  to  have  been  introduced  be- 
tween A.D.  313  and  315.  The  Indic- 
tion  was  a  cycle  of  15  years,  and 
began  with  the  month  of  September. 
S.  Athanasius  is  the  first  ecclesiastical 
author  who  adopts  it. 


Creed  sent  into  Gaul, 

COUNC.  Mark  into  Gaul  °.  And  they,  as  being  sent  from  the  Council, 
AAND  deliver  the  following  document  to  Constans  Augustus  of 
SELEU.  blessed  memory1',  and  to  all  who  were  there : 

ivthCon-  We  believe  li  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,,  Creator  and 
fession,  Maker  of  all  things ;  from  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and 
or  4th  of  on  garth  js  named. 

Antioch,  An(j  jn  pjjg  Only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
342.  before  all  ages  was  begotten  from  the  Father,  God  from  God, 
Light  from  Light,  by  whom  all  things  were  made  in  the  heavens 
and  on  the  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  being  Word,  and  Wisdom, 
and  Power,  and  Life,  and  True  Light;  who  in  the  last  days  was 
made  man  for  us,  and  was  born  of  the  Holy  Virgin;  who  was 
crucified,  and  dead,  and  buried,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead  the 
third  day,  and  was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father ;  and  is  coming  at  the  end  of  the  world, 
to  judge  quick  and  dead,  and  to  render  to  every  one  according 
to  his  works ;  whose  Kingdom  endures  indissolubly  into  infinite 
agesr;  for  He  shall  be  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
not  only  in  this  world  but  in  that  which  is  to  come. 

0  This  deputation  had  it  in  purpose 
to  gain  the  Emperor  Constans  to  the 
Eusebian  party.  They  composed  a 
new  Confession  with  this  object.  Theo- 
dore of  Heraclea,  (who  made  commen- 
taries on  Scripture  and  is  said  to  have 
been  an  elegant  writer,)  Maris  and 
Narcissus,  were  all  Eusebians ;  but 
Mark  was  a  Semi-arian.  As  yet  the 
Eusebian  party  were  making  use  of  the 
Semi-arians,  but  their  professed  Creed 
had  already  much  degenerated  from 
Lucian's  at  the  Dedication. 

P  Constans  had  lately  become  master 
of  two  thirds  of  the  Empire  by  the  death 
of  his  elder  brother  Constantine,  who 
had  made  war  upon  him  and  fallen  in 
an  engagement.  He  was  at  this  time 
only  22  years  of  age.  His  enemies 
represent  his  character  in  no  favourable 
light,  but,  for  whatever  reason,  he 
sided  with  the  Catholics,  and  S.  Atha- 
nasius,  who  had  been  honourably 
treated  by  him  in  Gaul,  speaks  of 
him  in  the  language  of  gratitude.  In 
his  apology  to  Constantius,  he  says, 
"  thy  brother  of  blessed  memory  filled 
the  Churches  with  offerings,"  and  he 
speaks  of"  the  grace  given  him  through 
baptism."  §.  7.  Constans  was  mur- 
dered by  Magnentius  in  350,  and  one 
of  the  calumnies  against  Athanasius 
was  that  he  had  sent  letters  to  the 

*  The  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  Con- 
fessions are  the  same,  and  with  them 

agree  the  Creed  of  Philippopolis  (  A.  D, 
347,  or  344  according  to  Mansi).  These 
extend  over  a  period  of  nine  years,  A.  D. 
342 — 351,  (or  15  or  16  according  to 
Baronius  and  Mansi,  who  place  the  6th 
Confession,  i.  e.  the  1st  Sirmian,  at  357, 
358  respectively,)  and  make  the  sta- 
tionary period  of  Arianism.  The  two 
parties  of  which  the  heretical  body  was 
composed  were  kept  together,  not  only 
by  the  court,  but  by  the  rise  of  the  Sabel- 
lianism  of  Marcellus  (A.  D.  335)  and 
Photinus  (about  342).  This  too  would 
increase  their  strength  in  the  Church, 
and  is  the  excuse,  which  Hilary  himself 
urges,  for  their  frequent  Councils.  Still 
they  do  not  seem  to  be  able  to  escape 
from  the  argument  of  Athanasius,  that, 
whereas  new  Councils  are  for  new- 
heresies,  if  but  one  new  heresy  had 
risen,  but  one  new  Council  was  neces- 
sary. If  these  four  Confessions  say 
the  same  thing,  three  of  them  must  be 
superfluous,  vid.  infr.  §.  32.  However, 
in  spite  of  the  identity  of  the  Creed,  the 
difference  in  their  Anathemas  is  very 
great,  as  we  shall  see. 

r  These  words,  which  answer  to 
those  afterwards  added  at  the  second 
General  Council  (381 — 3)  are  directed 
against  the  doctrine  of  Marcellus,  who 
taught  that  the  Word  was  but  a  divine 
energy,  manifested  in  Christ  and  re- 
tiring from  Him  at  the  consummation 
of  all  things,  when  the  manhood  or 
flesh  of  Christ  would  consequently  no 

being  fourth  creed  of  Eiisebia  ns,  negative.  Ill 

And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  the  Paraclete;  which,  having  CHAP. 
promised  to  the  Apostles,  He  sent  forth  after  His  ascension  into      I. 
heaven,  to  teach  them  and  to  remind  of  all  things;    through 
whom  also  shall  be  sanctified  the  souls  of  those  who  sincerely 
believe  in  Him. 

But  those  who  say,  that  the  Son  was  from  nothing,  or  from 
other  subsistence  and  not  from  God,  and,  there  was  time  when 
He  was  not,  the  Catholic  Church  regards  as  aliens s. 

13.  As  if  dissatisfied  with  this,  they  hold  their  meeting  §.26. 
again  after  three  years,  and  dispatch  Eudoxius,  Martyrius,  and 
Macedonius  of  Cilicia l,  and  some  others  with  them,  to  the 
parts  of  Italy,  to  carry  with  them  a  faith  written  at  great 
length,  with  numerous  additions  over  and  above  those  which 
have  gone  before.  They  went  abroad  with  these,  as  if  they 
had  devised  something  new. 

We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Creator  andvthCon 
Maker  of  all  things,  from  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and 
on  earth  is  named. 

longer  reign.  "  How  can  we  admit," 
says  Marcellus  in  Eusebius,  "  that 
that  flesh,  which  is  from  the  earth 
and  profited!  nothing,  should  co- 
exist with  the  "Word  in  the  ages  to 
come  as  serviceable  to  Him?"  de  Eccl. 
Theol.  iii.  8.  Again,  "  If  He  has 
received  a  beginning  of  His  Kingdom 
not  more  than  four  hundred  years 
since,  it  is  no  paradox  that  He  who 
gained  that  Kingdom  so  short  a  while 
since,  should  be  said  by  the  Apostle  to 
deliver  it  up  to  God.  What  are  we 
told  of  the  human  flesh,  which  the 
"Word  bore  for  us,  not  four  hundred 
years  since  ?  will  the  Word  have  it  in 
the  ages  to  come,  or  only  to  the  judg- 
ment season?"  iii.  17.  And,  "  Should 
any  ask  concerning  that  flesh  which  is 
in  the  Word  having  become  immortal, 
we  say  to  him,  that  we  count  it  not 
safe  to  pronounce  on  points  of  which 
we  learn  not  for  certain  from  divine 
Scripture."  cont.  Marc.  ii.  4. 

8  S.  Hilary,  as  we  have  seen  above, 
p.  67.  by  implication  calls  this  the 
Nicene  Anathema;  and  so  it  is  in  the 
respects  in  which  he  speaks  of  it ;  but 
it  omits  many  of  the  Nicene  clauses, 
and  with  them  the  condemnation  of 
many  of  the  Arian  articles.  The 
especial  point  which  it  evades  is  our 
Lord's  eternal  existence,  substituting 
for  "  once  He  was  not,"  "  there  was 

time  when  He  was  not,"  and  leaving 
out  "  before  His  generation  He  was 
not,"  "  created,"  "  alterable"  and 
"  mutable."  It  seems  to  have  been 
considered  sufficient  for  Gaul,  as  used 
now,  for  Italy  as  in  the  5th  Confession 
or  Macrostich,  and  for  Africa  as  in 
the  creed  of  Philippopolis. 

1  Little  is  known  of  Macedonius  who 
was  Bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  or  of  Mar- 
tyrius;  and  too  much  of  Eudoxius.  This 
Long  Confession,  or  Macrostich,  which 
follows,  is  remarkable  for  the  first  signs 
of  the  presence  of  that  higher  party  of 
Semi-arians  who  ultimately  joined  the 
Church.  It  is  observable  also  that  the 
more  Catholic  portions  occur  in  the 
Anathemas,  as  if  they  were  forced  in 
indirectly,  and  that  with  an  incon- 
sistency with  the  other  statements,  for 
not  only  the  word  "  substance"  does 
not  occur,  but  the  Son  is  said  to  be 
made.  At  this  date  the  old  Semi- 
arians,  as  Eusebius,  Asterius,  and  Aca- 
cius  were  either  dying  off,  or  degene- 
rating into  most  explicit  impiety ;  the 
new  school  of  Semi-arians  consisting  for 
the  most  part  of  a  younger  generation. 
St.  Cyril  delivered  his  Catechetical 
Lectures  two  or  three  years  later  than 
this  Creed,  viz.  347  or  348.  Silvanus, 
Eleusius,  Meletius,  Eusebius  of  Samo- 
sata  are  later  still. 

or  Ma- 
A.  D. 

112  The  Macrostich  Creed  sent  into  Italy. 

COUNC.  And  in  His  Only-begotten  Son  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
A  KIM.  before  all  ages  was  begotten  from  the  Father,  God  from  God, 
SBLEU  L*gnt  from  Light,  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  in  heaven  and 

*  on  the  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  being  Word  and  Wisdom  and 

Power  and  Life  and  True  Light,  who  in  the  last  days  was 
made  man  for  us,  and  was  born  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  crucified  and 
dead  and  buried,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day, 
and  was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father,  and  is  coming  at  the  end  of  the  world  to  judge 
quick  and  dead,  and  to  render  to  every  one  according  to  His 
works,  whose  Kingdom  endures  unceasingly  unto  infinite  ages; 
for  He  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  not  only  in  this 
world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come. 

And  we  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  the  Paraclete,  which, 
having  promised  to  the  Apostles,  He  sent  forth  after  the  ascension 
into  heaven,  to  teach  them  and  to  remind  of  all  things ;  through 
whom  also  shall  be  sanctified  the  souls  of  those  who  sincerely 
believe  in  Him. 

But  those  who  say,  (1)  that  the  Son  was  from  nothing,  or  from 
other  subsistence  and  not  from  God ;  (2)  and  that  there  was  a  time 
or  age  when  He  was  not,  the  Catholic  and  Holy  Church  regards 
as  aliens.  Likewise  those  who  say,  (3)  that  there  are  three  Gods  : 
(4)  or  that  Christ  is  not  God ;  (5)  or  that  before  the  ages  He  was 
neither  Christ  nor  Son  of  God;  (6)  or  that  Father  and  Son,  or 
Holy  Ghost,  are  the  same;  (7)  or  that  the  Son  is  Ingenerate;  or 
that  the  Father  generated  the  Son,  not  by  choice  or  will;  the 
Holy  and  Catholic  Church  anathematizes. 

(1.)  For  neither  is  safe  to  say  that  the  Son  is  from  nothing,  (since 
this  is  no  where  spoken  of  Him  in  divinely  inspired  Scripture,) 
nor  again  of  any  other  subsistence  before  existing  beside  the 
Father,  but  from  God  alone  do  we  define  Him  genuinely  to  be 
generated.  For  the  divine  Word  teaches  that  the  Ingenerate  and 
Unoriginate,  the  Father  of  Christ,  is  One". 

(2.)  Nor  may  we,  adopting  the  hazardous  position,  "  There  was 
once  when  He  was  not,"  from  unscriptural  sources,  imagine 
any  interval  of  time  before  Him,  but  only  the  God  who  generated 
Him  apart  from  time;  for  through  Him  both  times  and  ages  came 
to  be.  Yet  we  must  not  consider  the  Son  to  be  co-unoriginate 
and  co-ingenerate  with  the  Father  ;  for  no  one  can  be  properly 
called  Father  or  Son  of  one  who  is  co-unoriginate  and  co-ingene- 
rate with  Himx.  But  we  acknowledge  that  the  Father  who  alone 

u  It  is  observable  that  here  and  in  62,  note  e. 

the  next  paragraph  the  only  reasons  x  They  argue,  after  the  usual  Arian 

they  give  against  using  the  only  two  manner,  that  the  term  "  Son"  essenti- 

Arian  formulas  which  they  condemn  is  ally  implies  beginning,    and   excludes 

that  they  are  not  found  in  Scripture,  the   title   "  co-unoriginate ;"    whereas 

which  leaves  the  question  of  their  truth  the  Catholics  contended  (as  alluded  to 

untouched.    Here,  in  their  explanation  supr.  p.   98,    note  n.)   that   the   word 

of  the  ig  tlx.  OVTU*,  or  from  nothing,  they  Father  implied  a  continuity  of  nature, 

do  but  deny  it  with  Eusebius's  evasion ;  that  is,  a  co-eternal  existence  with  the 

that  nothing  can  be  from  nothing,  and  Father,  vid.  p.  10,  note  u. 
every  thing  must  be  from  God.  vid.  p. 

being  the  fifth  of  the  Eusebians,  Semi-arian.        113 

is  Unoriginate  and  Ingenerate,  hath  generated  inconceivably  and  CHAP. 
incomprehensively ;  and  that  the  Son  hath  been  generated  before     n. 
ages,  and  in  no  wise  to  be  ingenerate  Himself  like  the  Father,  but 
to  have  the  Father  who  generated  Him  as  His  origin ;  for  the  1  Cor. 
Head  of  Christ  is  God.  n>3' 

(3.)  Nor  again,  in  confessing  three  realities  '  and  three  Persons, ]  «*«V 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  according  to  the  <"ara 
Scriptures,  do  we  therefore  make  Gods  three ;  since  we  acknow- 


safes  this  to  all  others  bountifully. 

(4.)  Nor  again  in  saying  that  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  one  only  God,  the  only  Ingenerate ;  do  we  therefore  deny 
that  Christ  also  is  Go:l  before  ages  :  as  the  disciples  of  Paul  of 
Samosata,  who  say  that  after  the  incarnation  He  was  by  advance3 '  I*  *•£«- 
made  God,  from  being  made  by  nature  a  mere  man.     For  we  ***•*•  P- 
acknowledge,  that  though  He  be  subordinate  to  His  Father  and?0'  note 
God,  yet,  being  before  ages  begotten  of  God,   He  is  God  per- 
fect according  to  nature  and  true,  and  not  first  man  and  then 
God,  but  first  God  and  then  becoming  man  for  us,  and  never 
having  been  deprived  of  being y. 

(5.)  We  abhor  besides,  and  anathematize  those  who  make  a  pre- 
tence of  saying  that  He  is  but  the  mere  word  of  God  and  unexisting, 
having  His  being  in  another, — now  as  if  pronounced,  as  some  speak, 
now  as  mental  % — holding  that  He  -was  not  Christ  or  Son  of  God  or 

y  These  strong  words,  fftov  KKT 
TtAi/av  x.ett  u.\n(/n  are  of  a  different  cha- 
racter from  any  which  have  occurred 
in  the  Arian  Confessions.  They  can 
only  be  explained  away  hy  considering 
them  used  in  contrast  to  the  Samosa- 
tene  doctrine  ;  Paul  saying  that  that 
dignity,  which  the  Arians  ascribed 
to  our  Lord  before  His  birth  in  the 
flesh,  was  bestowed  on  Him  after 
it.  vid.  p.  116,  ref.  1.  Thus  "  perfect 
according  to  nature"  and  "  true,"  will 
not  be  directly  connected  with  a  God" 
so  much  as  opposed  to,  u  by  advance," 
"  by  adoption."  &c.  p,  108,  note  1. 

z  The  use  of  the  \\ords  ivbiii&irof  and 
W£«<pa£/xof,  mental  and  pr&nounced,  to 
distinguish  the  two  senses  of  xdyog, 
reason  and  word,  came  from  the  school 
of  the  Stoics,  and  is  found  in  Philo, 
and  was  under  certain  limitations 
allowed  in  Catholic  theology.  Da- 
masc.  F.  O.  ii.  21.  To  use  either 
absolutely  and  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other  would  have  involved  some 
form  of  Sabellianism,  or  Arianism  as 
the  case  might  be  ;  but  each  might  cor- 
rect the  defective  sense  of  either.  S.  The- 
ophilus  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  at  once 

and  ireoqo^x.'it.  ad  Autol.  ii.  10 
and  22.  S.  Cyril  as  ivtiixfara;,  in  Joann. 
p.  39.  on  the  other  hand  he  says,  "  This 
pronounced  word  of  ours,  <r£«<p<j£/xcf,  is 
generated  from  mind  and  unto  mind, 
and  seems  to  be  other  than  that  which 
stirs  in  the  heart,  &c.  &c.  . .  so  too  the 
Son  of  God  proceeding  from  the  Father 
without  division,  is  the  expression  and 
likeness  of  what  is  proper  to  Him,  being 
a  subsistent  Word,  and  living  from  a 
Living  Father."  Thesaur.  p.  47.  When 
the  Fathers  deny  that  our  Lord  is  the 
V£o<f>o£txos  >.oyo;,  they  only  mean  that 
that  title  is  not,  even  as  far  as  its  phi- 
losophical idea  went,  an  adequate  re- 
presentative of  Him,  a  word  spoken 
being  insubstantive,  vid.  Athan.  Orat. 
ii.  35.  Hil.  de  Syn.  46.  Cyr.  Catech.  xi. 
10.  Damas.  Ep.  ii.  p.  203.  nee  prola- 
tivum  ut  generationem  ei  demas,  for  this 
was  the  Arian  doctrine.  "  The  Son  [says 
Eunomius]  is  other  than  the  Mental 
Word,  or  Word  in  intellectual  action,  of 
which  partaking  and  being  filled  He  is 
called  the  Pronounced  W^ord,  and  ex- 
pressive of  the  Father's  substance,  that 
is,  the  Son."  Cyril  in  Joann.  p.  31. 
the  Gnostics  seem  to  have  held  the 


The  Macrostich  Creed,  sent  into  Italy, 




1  p.  107, 
note  e. 

Gen.  1, 


2  vid.  p. 


notes  p 

and  q. 

mediator1  or  image  of  God  before  ages;  but  that  He  first  be- 
came Christ  and  Son  of  God,  when  He  took  our  flesh  from  the 
Virgin,  not  four  hundred  years  since.  For  they  will  have  it  that 
then  Christ  began  His  Kingdom,  and  that  it  will  have  an  end 
after  the  consummation  of  all  and  the  judgment a.  Such  are  the 
disciples  of  Marcellus  and  Scotinusb  of  Galatian  Ancyra,  who, 
equally  with  Jews,  negative  Christ's  existence  before  ages,  and  His 
Godhead,  and  unending  Kingdom,  upon  pretence  of  supporting 
the  divine  Monarchy.  We,  on  the  contrary,  regard  Him  not  as 
simply  God's  pronounced  word  or  mental,  but  as  Living  God  and 
Word,  existing  in  Himself,  and  Son  of  God  and  Christ;  being 
and  abiding  with  His  Father  before  ages,  and  that  not  in  fore- 
knowledge only  c,  and  ministering  to  Him  for  the  whole  framing 
whether  of  things  visible  or  invisible.  For  He  it  is,  to  whom  the 
Father  said,  Let  Us  make  man  in  Our  image,  offer  Our  likeness-,  who 
also  was  seen  in  His  own  Person d  by  the  patriarchs,  gave  the  law, 

f.  Iren.  Hser.  ii.  12.  n.  5. 
Marcellus  is  said  by  Eusebius  to  have 
considered  our  Lord  as  first  the  one 
and  then  the  other.  Eccl.  Theol.  ii.  15. 
Sabellius  thought  our  Lord  the  vrgoQigi- 
KOS  according  to  Epiph.  Hser.  p.  398. 
Damasc.  Heer.  62.  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata  the  Ivtidfaros.  Epiph.  Heer.  65. 
passim.  Eusebius,  Eccles.  Theol.  ii. 
17.  describes  our  Lord  as  the 
while  he  disowns  it. 

a  This  passage  seems  taken  from 
Eusebius,  and  partly  from  Marcellus's 
own  words,  vid.  supr.  note  r.  S.  Cyril 
speaks  of  his  doctrine  in  like  terms. 
Catech.  xv.  27. 

b  i.  e.  Photinus  of  Sirmium,  the  pupil 
of  Marcellus  is  meant,  who  published 
his  heresy  about  343.  A  similar  play 
upon  words  is  found  in  the  case  of  other 
names  ;  though  Lucifer  seems  to  think 
that  his  name  was  really  Scotinus  and 
that  his  friends  changed  it.  de  non  pare, 
pp.  203,  220, 226.  Thus  Noetus  is  called 
uvwrtf.  Epiph.  Haer.  57.  2  fin.  and  8. 
Eudoxius,  atififyof.  Lucifer,  pro  Athan. 
i.  p.  65.  Moriend.  p.  258.  Eunomians 
among  the  Latins,  (by  a  confusion  with 
Anomcean,)  ava^a/,  or  sine  lege.  Cod. 
Can.  Ixi.  1.  ap.  Leon.  Op.  t.  3.  p.  443. 
Vigilantius  dormitantius,  Jerom.  contr. 
Vigil,  init.  Aerius  ui^iov  •xnv^.a.  'iff%ti. 
Epiph.  Hser.  75.  6  tin.  Of  Arius, 
*Agtf,  agin.  vid.  supr.  p.  91,  note  q. 
Gregory,  o  vvfru^ui-  Anast.  Hod.  10. 
p.  186.  Eutjches,  Wrt^jjj,  &c.  &c. 
Photinus  seems  to  have  brought  out 
more  fully  the  heresy  of  Marcellus ;  both 
of  whom,  as  all  Sabellians  excepting 
Patripassians,  differed  from  the  Arians 
mainly  in  this  point  alone,  when  it  was 
that  our  Lord  came  into  being  ;  the 

Arians  said  before  the  worlds,  the  Sa- 
mosatenes,  Photinians,  &c.  said  on  His 
human  birth ;  both  parties  considered 
Him  a  creature,  and  that  the  true  Word 
and  Wisdom  were  attributes  or  ener- 
gies of  Almighty  God.  This  Lucifer 
well  observes  to  Constantius  in  the  course 
of  one  of  the  passages  above  quoted, 
"  Quid  interesse  arbitraris  inter  te  et 
Paulum  Samosatenum,  vel  eum  turn 
ejus  discipulum  tuum  conscotinum,  nisi 
quia  tu  ante  omnia  dicas,  ille  vero  post 
omnia?"  p. 203, 4.  A  subordinate  differ- 
ence was  this,  that  the  Samosatene,  Pho- 
tinian,  &c.  considered  our  Lord  to  be 
really  gifted  with  the  true  Word, whereas 
the  Arian  did  scarcely  more  than  con- 
sider Him  framed  after  the  pattern  of 
it.  Photinus  was  condemned,  after 
this  Council,  at  Sardica,  (347  if  not 
344,)  and  if  not  by  Catholics  at  least  by 
Eusebians  ;  at  Milan  (348)  by  the  Ca- 
tholics ;  and  perhaps  again  in  351 ;  at 
Sirmium  his  see,  by  the  Eusebians  in 
351,  when  he  was  deposed.  He  was 
an  eloquent  man  and  popular  in  his 
diocese,  and  thus  maintained  his  ground 
for  some  years  after  his  condemnation. 

e  "  This  passage  of  the  Apostle," 
Rom.i.  ]."  [Marcellus]  Iknownotwhy 
perverts,  instead  of  declared,  o^fftivros, 
making  it  predestined,  ^ot^fffivratj  that 
the  Son  may  be  such  as  they  who  are 
predestined  at  foreknowledge."  Euseb. 
contr.  Marc.  i.  2.  Paul  of  Samosata  also 
considered  our  Lord  Son  by  foreknow- 
ledge, f/je'yvuffti.  vid.  Routh.  Eeliqu. 
t.  2.  p.  466.  and  Eunomius,  Apol.  24. 

d  auTov£offu<ffus  and  so  Cyril.  Hier. 
Catech.  xv.  14  and  17.  Jt  means, 
"  not  in  personation,"  and  Philo  con- 
trasting divine  appearances  with  those 

being  thejiflli  of  the  Eu-sebians,  Seminarian.        115 

spoke  by  the  prophets,  and  at  last,  became  man,  and  manifested  CHAP. 
His  own  Father  to  all  men,  and  reigns  to  never-ending  ages. 

For  Christ  has  taken  no  recent  dignity1,  but  we  have  believed1  p  113, 
Him  to  be  perfect  from  the  first,  and  like  in  all  things  tothenotev- 
Father  c. 

(6.)  And  those  who  say  that  the  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
are  the  same,,  and  irreligiously  take  the  Three  Names  of  one  and 
the  same   Reality2  and   Person,   we   justly  proscribe   from   the  -^ay- 
Church,   because   they   suppose  the   illimitable   and   impassible  ?•«•**• 
Father  to  be  limitable  withal  and  passible  through  His  becoming?^3' 
man:  for  such  are  they  whom  the  Latins  call  the  Patropassians, 
and  we  Sabellians  f.     For  we  acknowledge  that  the  Father  who 
sent,    remained    in    the    peculiar    state    of    His   unchangeable 
Godhead,  and  that  Christ  who  was  sent  fulfilled  the  economy  of 
the  incarnation. 

(7-)  And  at  the  same  time  those  who  irreverently  say  that 
the  Son  was  generated,  not  by  choice  or  will,  thus  encompassing 
God  with  a  necessity  which  excludes  choice  and  purpose,  so  that 
He  begat  the  Son  unwillingly,  we  account  as  most  irreligious 
and  alien  to  the  Church  ;  in  that  they  have  dared  to  define  such 
things  concerning  God,  beside  the  common  notions  concerning 
Him,  nay,  beside  the  purport  of  divinely  inspired  Scripture. 
For  we,  knowing  that  God  is  absolute  and  sovereign  over  Him- 
self, have  a  religious  judgment  that  He  generated  the  Son  volun- 
tarily and  freely  ;  yet,  as  wre  have  a  reverent  belief  in  the  Son's 
words  concerning  Himself,  The.  Lord  hath  created  Me  a  beginning  Prov.  8. 


of  Angels.  Leg.    Alleg.   iii.   62      On  a  son  is  to  a  father.     And  if  any  one 

the  other  hand,  Theophilus  on  the  text,  says  that  He  is  like  in  a  certain  respect, 

*'  The  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in   <r<,    as   is   written    afore,    he   is 

the  garden,"  speaks  of  the  "Word,  "  as-  alien  from  the  Catholic  Church,  as  not 

suming   the   person,   *-^Wrov,   of  the  confessing   the    likeness    according   to 

Father,"  and  "  in  the  person  of  God."  divine  Scripture."  Epiph.  Hser.  73.  22. 

ad   Autol.   ii.   22.   the  word    not  then  S.   Cyril  of  Jerusalem  uses  the 

having  its  theological  sense.  wavra  or  Iv  KKSTIV  opoiov,  Catech.  iv.  7. 

e  t/tatov  •xu.vra..     Here  again  we  xi.  4  and  18.  and  Athan.   Orat.   i.  §. 

have   a   strong   Semi-arian   or   almost  21.  and  ii.  §.  18  and  22.  Damasc.  F.  O. 

Catholic  formula  introduced  by  the  bye,  i.  8.  p.  135. 

marking  the  presence  of  what  may  be  f  Eusebius  also,  Eccles.  Theol.  i.  20. 

called  the  new  Semi-arian  school.     Of  says  that  Sabellius  held  the  Patropas- 

course  it  admitted  of  evasion,  but  in  sian  doctrine.  Epiph.  however,  Haer.  p. 

its   fulness   it  included    "substance."  398.  denies  it,  and  imputes  the  doctrine  to 

At  Sirmium  Constantius  inserted  it  in  Noetus.     Sabellius's  doctrine  will  come 

the  Confession  which  occurs  supra,  vid.  before  us  infr.  Orat.  iv.  ;  meanwhile  it 

p.  84,  note  a.     On  this  occasion  Basil  should  be  noticed,  that  in  the  reason 

subscribed  in  this  form.      "  I,  Basil,  which  theConfession  alleges  against  that 

Bishop  of  Ancyra,  believe  and  assent  heretical  doctrine  it  is  almost  implied 

to  what  is  aforewritten,  confessing  that  that  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  suffered 

the  Son  is  like  the  Father  in  all  things  ;  on  the  Cross.   They  would  naturally  fall 

and  by  '  in  all  things,'  not  only  that  into  this  notion  directly  theygave  up  their 

He  is  like  in  will,  but  in  subsistence,  belief  in  our  Lord's  absolute  divinity. 

and  existence,   and  being;    as  divine  It  would  as  naturally  follow  to  hold  that 

Scripture   teaches,   spirit   from   spirit,  our  Lord  had  no  human  soul,  but  that 

life   from  life,  light  from   light,   God  His  pre-existent  nature  stood  in   the 

from  God,  true  Son  from  true,  Wisdom  place  of  it:—  also  that  His  Mediator- 

fromtheWise  God  and  Father  ;  and  once  ship  was  no  peculiarity  of  His  Incarna- 

for  all,  like  the  Father  in  all  things,  as  tion.  vid.  p.  107,  note  e.  p.  119,  note  o. 

116  The  Macrostich  Creed,  sent  into  lialy, 

COUNC.O/*  His  ways  for  His  works,  we  do  not  understand  Him  to  be 
AUIM.  generated,  like  the  creatures  or  works  which  through  Him  came 
r>AN°    to  be.     For  it  is  irreligious  and  alien  to  the  ecclesiastical  faith, 
>F'Lt'u'to  compare  the  Creator  with  handiworks  created  by  Him,  and  to 
think  that  He  has  the  same  manner  of  generation  with  the  rest. 
For  divine  Scripture  teaches  us  really  and  truly  that  the  Only- 
begotten  Son  was  generated  sole  and  solely  g. 

Yet h,  in  saying  that  the  Son  is  in  Himself,  and  both  lives  and  exists 

like  the  Father,  we  do  not  on  that  account  separate  Him  from 

the  Father,  imagining  place  and  interval  between  their  union  in 

the  way  of  bodies.     For  we  believe  that  they  are  united  with 

i  de        each  other  without  mediator  or  distance1,  and  that  they  exist  in- 

Decr.      separable;  all  the  Father  embosoming  the  Son,  and  all  the  Son 

$.8.supr.  hanging  and  adhering  to  the  Father,  and  alone  resting  on  the 

P' *  *     Father's  breast  continually2.     Believing  then  in  the  All-perfect 

-pdeecr      Trinity,  the  most  Holy,  that  is,  in  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 

§.  26.     Holy  Ghost,  and  calling  the  Father  God,  and  the  Son  God,  yet 

supr.      we  confess  in  them,  not  two  Gods,  but  one  dignity  of  Godhead,  and 

p.  46.     one  exact  harmony  of  dominion,  the  only  Father  being  Head  over 

the  whole  universe  wholly,  and  over  the  Son  Himself,  and  the 

Son  subordinated  to  the   Father;    but,  excepting    Him,   ruling 

over  all  things  after  Him  which  through  Himself  have  come  to 

be,  and  granting  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  unsparingly  to  the 

holy   at   the    Father's  will.      For   that  such    is  the  account  of 

3  p.  45,  the  Divine  Monarchy3  towards  Christ,  the  sacred  oracles  have 

note  h.   delivered  to  us. 

Thus  much,  in  addition  to  the  faith  before  published  in 
epitome,  we  have  been  compelled  to  draw  forth  at  length,  not  in 
any  officious  display,  but  to  clear  away  all  unjust  suspicion  con- 
cerning our  opinions,  among  those  who  are  ignorant  of  what  we 
really  hold  :  and  that  all  in  the  West  may  know,  both  the 
audacity  of  the  slanders  of  the  heterodox,  and  as  to  the  Orientals, 

«  The  Confession  does  not  here  com-  history.  The  paragraph  is  in  its  very 
ment  on  the  clause  against  our  Lord's  form  an  interpolation  or  appendix,  while 
being  Ingenerate,  having  already  no-  its  doctrine  bears  distinctive  characters 
ticed  it  under  paragraph  (2).  It  will  be  of  something  higher  than  the  old  Semi- 
remarked  that  it  still  insists  upon  the  un-  arianism.  The  characteristic  of  that,  as 
scripturalness  of  the  Catholic  positions,  of  other  shapes  of  the  heresy,  was  the  ab- 
The  main  subject  of  this  paragraph  the  solute  separation  which  it  put  between 
St^wi  ym»j&v,  which  forms  great  part  the  Father  and  the  Son.  They  considered 
of  the  Ariari  question  and  controversy,  Them  as  two  alrim,  O/U,OIKI  like,  but  not  as 
is  reserved  for  Orat.  iii.  59,  &c.  in  which  opacvnor,  their  very  explanation  of  the 
Athanasius  formally  treats  of  it.  He  word  riteits  was  "independent"  and  "dis- 
trea.ts  of  the  text  Prov.  viii.  22.  through-  tinct."  Language  then,  such  as  that  inthe 
out  Orat.  ii.  The  doctrine  of  the  text, was  the  nearest  assignable  approach 
f&owytvls  has  already  partially  come  to  the  reception  of  the  ofteovtriof ;  all  that 
before  us  in  de  Deer.  §.7—  9.  p.  12,  &c.  was  wanting  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
M«'»wj,  not  as  the  creatures,  vid.  p.  62,  fri£«g«g««vf,  of  which  infr.  Orat.  iii. 
n°te  f.  It  is  observable  that  a  hint  is 

h  This  last  paragraph  is  the  most  thrown  out  by  Athanasius  about  "  sug- 

curious  of  the  instances  of  the  presence  of  gestions"  from  without,  a  sentence  or 

this  new  and  nameless  influence,  which  two  afterwards.  It  is  observable  too 

seems  at  this  time  to  have  been  spring-  that  in  the  next  paragraph  the  preceding 

ing  up  among  the  Eusebians,  and  shew-  doctrine  is  pointedly  said  to  be  that  of 

ed  itself  by  acts  before  it  has  a  place  in  "  the  Orientals." 

being  thejifth  of  the  Eusebians,  Semi-arimns.       117 

their  ecclesiastical  judgment  in  the  Lord,  to  which  the  divinely  CHAP. 
inspired  Scriptures  bear  witness  without  violence,  where  men  are      II. 
not  perverse. 

14.  However  they  did  not  stand  even  to  this ;  for  again  at  §•  27. 
Sirmium1  they  met  together11  against  Photinus1,  and  there  com- 
posed a  faith  again,  not  drawn  out  into  such  length,  not  so  full 
in  words ;  but  subtracting  the  greater  part  and  adding  in  its 
place,  as  if  they  had  listened  to  the  suggestions  of  others, 
they  wrote  as  follows : — 

i  Sirmimn  was  a  city  of  lower  Pan- 
nonia,  not  far  from  the  Danube,  and  it 
was  the  great  bulwark  of  the  Illyrian 
provinces  of  the  Empire.  There  Vetra- 
nio  assumed  the  purple;  and  there  Con- 
stantius  was  born.  The  frontier  war 
caused  it  to  be  from  time  to  time 
the  Imperial  residence.  We  hear  of 
Constantius  at  Sirmium  in  the  sum- 
mer of  357.  Ammian.  xvi.  10.  He 
also  passed  there  the  ensuing  winter, 
ibid.  xvii.  12.  In  October,  358,  after 
the  Sarmatian  war,  he  entered  Sirmium 
in  triumph,  and  passed  the  winter  there, 
xvii.  13  fin.  and  with  a  short  absence 
in  the  spring,  remained  there  till  the 
end  of  May,  359.  vid.  p.  84,  note  a. 

k  In  the  dates  here  fixed  for  the  Con- 
fessions of  Sirmium,  Petavius  has  been 
followed,  who  has  thrown  more  light  on 
the  subject  than  any  one  else.  In  351, 
the  Semi-arian  party  was  still  stronger 
than  in  345.  The  leading  person  in 
this  Council  was  Basil  of  Ancyra,  who 
is  generally  considered  their  head.  Ba- 
sil held  a  disputation  with  Photinus.  Sil- 
vanus  too  of  Tarsus  now  appears  for  the 
first  time;  while,  according  to  Socrates, 
Mark  of  Arethusa,  who  was  more  con- 
nected with  the  Eusebians  than  any 
other  of  his  party,  drew  up  the  Ana- 
themas ;  the  Confession  used  was  the 
same  as  that  sent  to  Constant,  of  the 
Council  of  Philippopolis,  and  the  Ma- 

J  There  had  been  no  important  Ori- 
ental Council  held  since  that  of  the 
Dedication  ten  years  before,  till  this  of 
Sirmium  ;  unless  indeed  that  of  Philip- 
popolis requires  to  be  mentioned,  which 
was  a  secession  from  the  Council  of 
Sardica.  S.  Hilary  treats  its  creed  as  a 
Catholic  composition,  de  Syn.  39 — 63. 
Philastrius  and  Vigilius  call  the  Coun- 
cil a  meeting  of  u  holy  bishops"  and 
a  "  Catholic  Council."  de  Hser.  65.  in 
Eutych.  v.  init.  What  gave  a  character 
and  weight  to  this  Council,  which  be- 

longed to  no  other  Eusebian  meeting, 
was,  that  it  met  to  set  right  a  real  evil, 
and  was  not  a  mere  pretence  with  Arian 
objects.     Photinus  had  now  been  8  or 
9  years  in  the  open  avowal  of  his  heresy, 
yet  in  possession  of  his  see.      Nothing  is 
more  instructive  in   the  whole  of  this 
eventful  history  than  the  complication 
of  hopefulness  and  deterioration  in  the 
Oriental  party, and  the  apparent  advance 
yet  decline  of  the  truth.     Principles, 
good  and  bad,  were  developing  on  both 
sides  with  energy.     The  fall  of  Hosius 
and  Liberius,  and  the  dreadful  event  of 
Ariminum,  are  close  before  the  ruin  of 
the  Eusebian  power.    As  to  the  Bishops 
present   at   this    Sirmian   Council,  we 
have  them  described  in  Sulpitius ;  '*  Part 
of  the    Bishops   followed    Arius,    and 
welcomed  the  desired  condemnation  of 
A  thanasius  ;  part,  brought  together  by 
fear  and  faction,   yielded   to    a   party 
spirit ;  a  few,  to  whom  faith  was  dear 
and  truth  precious,  rejected  the  unjust 
judgment."  Hist.  ii.  52.;  he  instances 
Paulinus  of  Treves,  whose  resistance, 
however,  took    place    at   Milan   some 
years  later.     Sozomen  gives  us  a  simi- 
lar account,  speaking  of  a  date  a  few 
years    before    the     Sirmian     Council. 
"  The  East,"  he  says,  "  in  spite  of  its 
being  in  faction  after  the  Antiochene 
Council"  of  the  Dedication,  uand  thence- 
forth openly  dissenting  from  the  Nicene 
faith,  in  reality,  I  think,  concurred  in 
the  sentiment  of  the  majority,  and  with 
them  confessed  the  Son  to  be  of  the 
Father's  substance  ;  but  from  conten- 
tiousness certain  of  them  fought  against 
the  term  '  One  in  substance ;'  some,  as 
I  conjecture,  having  originally  objected 
to   the   word.  ..others   from    habit... 
others,  aware  that  the  resistance  was 
unsuitable,  leaned  to  this  side  or  that 
to  gratify  parties  ;  and  many  thought  it 
weak    to    waste    themselves    in    such 
strife  of  words,  and  peaceably  held  to 
the  Nicene  decision."  Hist.  iii.  13. 

118       Tlwjirst  Creed  of  Sirmiuin,  ayainxt 

COUNC.      We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Creator  and 
AKIM.  Maker  of  all  things,  from  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and 
AM      earlh  is  named. 

ELELK      ^n(j  jn  j-jjg  Only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  the  Christ, 

vi.Con-  wn()  before  an  the  ages  was  begotten  from  the  Father,  God  from 

or  1st  '  God,    Light  from    Light,  by  whom  all   things   were  made,  in 

Sirmi-    heaven  and  on  the  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  being  Word  and 

an.A.D.  Wisdom  and  True  Light  and  Life,  who  in  the  last  days  was  made 

:5f]-  o   man  for  us,  and  was  born  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  and  crucified  and 

l?  '  °'  dead  and  buried,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  and 

was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 

the  Father,  and  is  coming  at  the  end  of  the  world,  to  judge 

quick  and  dead,  and  to  render  to  every  one  according  to  his 

works ;  whose  Kingdom  being  unceasing  endures  unto  the  infinite 

ages ;    for    He  shall  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  not 

only  in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come. 

And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  the  Paraclete ;  which,  having 
promised  to  the  Apostles,  to  send  forth  after  His  ascension  into 
heaven,  to  teach  and  to  remind  them  of  all  things,  He  did  send ; 
through  whom  also  are  sanctified  the  souls  of  those  wrho  sincerely 
believe  in  Him. 

(1.)  But  those  who  say  that  the  Son  was  from  nothing  or  from 
•  vid.  other  subsistence  l  and  not  from  God,  and  that  there  was  time 
note  on  or  age  when  He  was  not,  the  Holy  and  Catholic  Church  regards 
^IC-  as  aliens. 

p.D66.         (20  -Again  we  say,  Whosoever  says  that  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  two  Gods,  be  he  anathema"1. 

(3.)  And  whosoever,  saying  that  Christ  is  God,  before  ages  Son 
of  God,  does  not  confess  that  He  subserved  the  Father  for  the 
framing  of  the  universe,  be  he  anathema  n. 

m  This  Anathema  which  has  occurred  tics  is  very  much  the  same  on  this 
in  substance  in  the  Macrostich,  and  point  of  the  Son's  ministration,  with 
again  infra,  Anath.  18  and  23.  is  a  dis-  this  essential  difference  of  sense,  that 
claimer  on  the  part  of  the  Eusebian  Catholic  writers  mean  a  ministration 
party  of  the  charge  brought  against  them  internal  to  the  divine  substance  and  an 
with  reason  by  the  Catholics,  of  their  in  instrument  connatural  with  the  Father, 
fact  holding  a  supreme  and  a  secondary  and  Arius  meant  an  external  and 
God.  In  the  Macrostich  it  is  disclaimed  created  medium  of  operation,  vid.  p.  12. 
upon  a  simple  Arian  basis.  The  Semi-  note  z.  Thus  S.  Clement  calls  our  Lord 
arians  were  more  open  to  this  imputa-  "  the  All-harmonious  Instrument  (Ra- 
tion ;  Eusebius,  as  we  have  seen  above,  »«»)  of  God."  Protrept.  p.  6.  Eusebius 
distinctly  calling  our  Lord  a  second  "  an  animated  and  living  instrument 
and  another  God.  vid.  p.  63,  note  g.  (ogy«»«v  fyt^w^av,)  nay,  rather  divine 
It  will  be  observed  that  this  Anathema  and  vivific  of  every  substance  and  na- 
contradicts  the  one  which  immediately  ture."  Demonstr.  iv.  4.  S.  Basil,  on 
follows,  and  the  llth,  in  which  Christ  the  other  hand,  insists  that  the  Arians 
is  called  God;  except,  on  the  one  reduced  our  Lord  to  "  an  inanimate  in- 
hand,  the  Father  and  Son  are  One  God,  strument."  Spyutov  ci4>u%o9,  though  they 
which  was  the  Catholic  doctrine,  or,  called  Him  ur^yiv  rtXneravot,  most 

i  the  other,  the  Son  is  God  in  name  perfect  minister  or  under- worker,  adv. 

nily,  which  was  the  pure  Arian  or  Ano-  F.unom.   ii.  21.      Elsewhere  he   says, 

mcea"'  "the  nature  of  a  cause  is  one,  and  the 

language  of  Catholics  and  here-  nature  of  an  instrument,  0gy«v«i;,   an- 

being  the  sixth  of  the  Eu&cbians,  Semi-arian.         Ill) 

(4.)  Whosoever  presumes  to  say  that  the  Ingenerate,  or  a  part  of  CHAP. 
Him  !  was  born  of  Mary,  be  he  anathema.  II. 

(5.)  Whosoever  says  that  according  to  foreknowledge2  the  Son  is  ]  p.  114, 
before  Mary  and  not  that,  generated  from  the  Father  before  ages,  note  c- 
He  was  with  God,  and  that  through  Him  all  things  were  gene-    P*       > 
rated,  be  he  anathema. 

(6.)  Whosoever  shall  pretend  that  the  substance  of  God  was 
enlarged  or  contracted  3,  be  he  anathema.  f  Orat. 

(7.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  the  substance  of  God  being  enlarged iv*  §• 13< 
made  the  Son,  or  shall  name  the  enlargement  of  His  substance 
the  Son,  be  he  anathema. 

(8.)  Whosoever  calls  the  Son  of  God  the  mental  or  pronounced 
Word4,  be  he  anathema.  4  p.  113, 

(9.)  Whosoever  says  that  the  Son  from  Mary  is  man  only,  be  note  z- 
he  anathema. 

(10.)   Whosoever,  speaking  of  Him  who   is  from  Mary  God 
and  man,  thereby  means  God  the  Ingenerate5,  be  he  anathema.     5  p.  112, 

(11.)  Whosoever  shall  explain  /  am  the  First  and  I  am  the  Last,  n-  (2-) 
and  besides  Me  there  is  no  God,  which  is  said  for  the  denial  of Is*44'6* 
idols  and  of  gods  that  are  not,  to  the  denial  of  the  Only-begotten, 
before  ages  God,  as  Jews  do,  be  he  anathema. 

(12.)  Whosoever,  because  it  is  said  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  shall  John  1, 
consider  that  the  Word  was  changed  into  flesh,  or  shall  say  that 14> 
He  underwent  an  alteration  and  took  flesh,  be  he  anathema0. 

other ;. . .  foreign  then  in  nature  is  the  Son 
from  the  Father,  since  such  is  an  in- 
stmment  from  a  workman."  de  Sp.  S. 
n.  6  fin.  vid.  also  n.  4  fin.  and  n.  20. 
Afterwards  he  speaks  of  our  Lord  as 
ii  not  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  each 
work  by  particular  injunctions  in  detail, 
for  this  were  ministration,"  XtiTov£yixov, 
but  as  being  "  full  of  the  Father  s  ex- 
cellences," and  "  fulfilling  not  an  in- 
strumental, <j£y«wx»jv,  and  servile  min- 
istration,but  accomplishing  the  Father's 
will  like  a  Creator,  ^n^ov^yiKus •  ibid, 
n.  19.  And  so  S.  Gregory,  "  The  Fa- 
ther signifies,  the  Word  accomplishes, 
not  servilely,  nor  ignorantly,  but  with 
knowledge  and  sovereignty,  and,  to  speak 
more  suitably,  in  the  Father's  way, 
vctr£ix£;.  Orat.  30.  11.  And  S.  Cyril, 
"  There  is  nothing  abject  in  the  Son, 
as  in  a  minister,  uirou^yu,  as  they  say  ; 
for  the  God  and  Father  iujoins  not,  \vi- 
raTTs/,  on  His  Word,  '  Make  man,'  but 
as  one  with  Him,  by  nature,  and  in- 
separably existing  in  Him  us  a  co- 
operator,"  £c.  in  Joann.  p.  48.  Ex- 
planations such  as  these  secure  for  the 
Catholic  writers  some  freedom  in  their 
modes  of  speaking,  e.  g.  we  have  seen, 
supr.  p.  15.  note  d.  that  Athan.  speaks 
of  the  Son,  as  "  enjoined  and  min- 
istering," -rgofrairreftivot,  *«<  faMgymi, 

Orat.  ii.  §.  22.  Thus  S.  Irenaeus  speaks 
of  the  Father  being  well-pleased  and 
commanding,  xsAsyovro?,  and  the  Son 
doing  and  framing.  Hser.  iv.  75.  S. 
Basil  too,  in  the  same  treatise  in  which 
are  some  of  the  foregoing  protests, 
speaks  of  "  the  Lord  ordering,  vgoirruf- 
<ravT«,  and  the  Word  framing."  de  Sp.  S. 
n.  38.  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  of"  Him 
who  bids,  !»TSA.XIT«/,  bidding  to  one  who 
is  present  wiih  Him,"  Cat.  xi.  16.  vid. 
also  v<xr.%t<ruv  <rv\  jSovXjJ,  Justin.  Tryph. 
126.  and  V7eov%yov,  Theoph.  ad  Autol. 
ii.  lQ.i%uvtigi'ri5v0ihwfjt.uri)  Clem.  Strom, 
vii.  p.  832. 

0  The  12th  and  13th  Anathemas  are 
intended  to  meet  the  charge  which  is  al- 
luded to  pp.  1.15, 123,  notes  f  andu,  that 
Arianism  involved  the  doctrine  that  our 
Lord's  divine  nature  suffered.  Atha- 
nasius  brings  this  accusation  against 
them  distinctly  in  his  work  against 
Apollinaris,  "  Idle  then  is  the  fiction 
of  the  Arians,  who  suppose  that  the 
Saviour  took  flesh  only,  irreligiously 
imputing  the  notion  of  suffering  to  the 
impassible  godhead."  contr.  Apollin.  i. 
15.  vid.  also  Ambros.  de  Fide,  iii.  38. 
Salig  in  his  de  Eutychianismo  ant. 
Eutychen  takes  notice  of  none  of  the 
passages  in  the  text. 





Gen.  1, 

«p.  114, 
ref.  2. 

Gen.  19, 

100        The  first  Creed  of  Sirmiiim,  against  Photius, 

(13.)  Whosoever,  as  hearing  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God  was 
crucified,  shall  say  that  His  Godhead  underwent  corruption, 
or  passion,  or  alteration,  or  diminution,  or  destruction,  be  he 

(14.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  Let  Us  make  man  »  was  not  said 
by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  but  by  God  to  Himself,  be  he  ana- 
thema v. 

(15.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  Abraham  saw,  not  the  Son,  but 
the  Ingenerate  God  or  part  of  Him,  be  he  anathema 4. 

(16.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  with  Jacob,  not  the  Son  as  man, 
but  the  Ingenerate  God  or  part  of  Him,  did  wrestle,  be  he 
anathema r. 

(1 7«)  Whosoever  shall  explain,  The  Lord  ralnedjirefrom  the  Lord 
not  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  says  that  He  rained  from 

P  This  Anathema  is  directed  against 
the  Sabellians,  especially  Marcellus, who 
held  the  very  opinion  which  it  denounces, 
that  the  Almighty  spate  with  Himself. 
Euseb.  Eccles.  Theol.  ii.  15.  The  Jews 
said  that  Almighty  God  spoke  to  the 
Angels.  Basil.  Hexaem.  fin.  Others 
that  the  plural  was  used  as  authorities 
on  earth  use  it  in  way  of  dignity. 
Theod.  in  Gen.  19.  As  to  the  Catholic 
Fathers,  as  is  well  known,  they  inter- 
preted the  text  in  the  sense  here  given. 
It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  refer  to  in- 
stances ;  Petavius,however,  cites  the  fol- 
lowing. First  those  in  which  the  Eter- 
nal Father  is  considered  to  speak  to  the 
Son.  Theophilus,  ad  Autol. ii.  18.  Nova- 
tian,  de  Trin.  26.  Tertullian,  de  Cam. 
Christ.  5.  Synod.  Antioch.  contr.  Paul, 
ap.  Routh.  Reliqu.  t.  2.  p.  468.  Basil. 
Hexaem.  fin.  Cyr.  Hieros.  Cat.  x.  6. 
Cyril.  Alex.  Dial.  iv.  p.  516.  Athan. 
contr.  Gentes,  46.  Orat.  iii.  §.  29.  fin. 
Chrysost.  in  Genes.  Horn.  viii.  3.  Hilar. 
iv.  17.  v.  8.  Ambros.  Hexaera.  vi.  7.  Maxim,  ii.  26.  n.  2.  Next 
those  in  which  Son  and  Spirit  are  con- 
sidered as  addressed.  Theoph.  ad  Autol. 
ii.  18.  Pseudo-Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  v. 
p.  315.  Pseudo-Chrysost.  de  Trin.  t.  i. 
p.  832.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  12.  Theodor. 
in  Genes.  19.  Hser.  v.  3.  and  9.  But 
even  here,  where  the  Arians  agree  with 
Catholics,  they  differ  in  this  remarkable 
respect,  that  in  this  and  the  following 
Canons  they  place  certain  interpreta- 
tions of  Scripture  under  the  sanction  of 
an  anathema,  shewing  how  far  less 
free  the  system  of  heretics  is  than  that 
of  the  Church. 

i  This  again,  in  spite  of  the  wording, 
which  is  directed  against  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  and  of  an  heretical  implica- 
tion^ a  Catholic  interpretation.vid.  (be- 
sides Philo  de  Somniis.  i.  12.)  Justin. 

Tryph.  56.  and  126.  Iren.  Ha>r.  iv.  10. 
n.  1.  Tertull.  de  earn.  Christ.  6.  adv. 
Marc.  iii.  9.  adv.  Prax.  16.  Novat.  de 
Trin.  18.  Origen.  in  Gen.  Horn.  iv.  5. 
Cyprian,  adv.  Jud.  ii.  5.  Antioch.  Syn. 
contr.  Paul,  apud  Routh.  Rell.  t.  2.  p. 
469.  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  13.  Epiph.  Ancor. 
29  and  39.  Hser.  71.  5.  Chrysost.  in 
Gen.  Horn.  41.7.  These  references  are 
principally  from  Petavius  ;  also  from 
Dorscheus,  who  has  written  an  elabo- 
rate commentary  on  this  Council.  The 
implication  alluded  to  above  is,  that 
the  Son  is  of  a  visible  substance,  and 
thus  is  naturally  the  manifestation  of 
the  Invisible  God.  Petavius  maintains, 
and  Bull  denies,  (Defens.  F.  D.  iv.  3.) 
that  the  doctrine  is  found  in  Justin, 
Origen,  &c.  The  Catholic  doctrine  is 
that  the  Son  has  condescended  to  be- 
come visible  by  means  of  material  ap- 
pearances. Augustine  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  who  changed  the  mode  of 
viewing  the  texts  in  question,  and  con- 
sidered the  divine  appearance,  not  God 
the  Son,  but  a  created  Angel,  vid.  de 
Trin.  ii.  passim.  Jansenius  considers 
that  he  did  so  from  a  suggestion  of  St. 
Ambrose,  that  the  hitherto  received 
view  had  been  the  origo  hseresis  Ari- 
anse,  vid.  his  Augustinus,  lib.  prooem. 
c.  12.  t.  2.  p.  12.  The  two  views  are  not 
inconsistent  with  each  other.  It  is  re- 
markable that  in  this  and  the  next  ana- 
thema for  "  partem  ejus"  in  Hilary, 
Petavius  should  propose  to  read  "  pa- 
trem"  against  the  original  text  in  Athan. 
f*.i£»s  avrev,  and  the  obvious  explanation 
of  it  by  the  phrase  ftigef  ofAoovviov,  which 
was  not  unfrequently  in  the  mouths  of 
Arian  objectors,  vid.  supr.  p.  97,  note  i. 
r  This  and  the  following  Canon  are 
Catholic  in  their  main  doctrine,  and 
might  be  illustrated,  if  necessary,  as 
the  foregoing. 

being  the  sixth  of  the  Eusebians,  Semi-arian.        121 

Himself,  be  he  anathema.     For  the  Son  Lord  rained  from  the  CHAP. 
Father  Lord.  IL 

(18.)  Whosoever  hearing  that  the  Father  is  Lordandthe  Son  Lord 
and  the  Father  and  Son  Lord,  for  there  is  Lord  from  Lord,  says 
there  are  two  Gods,,  be  he  anathema.     For  we  do  not  place  the 
Son  in  the  Father's  order,  but  as  subordinate  to  the  Father ;  for 
He  did  not  descend  upon  Sodom  without  the  Father's  will1,  nor1  p.  118, 
did  He  rain  from  Himself,  but  from  the  Lord,  that  is,  the  Father  note  n- 
authorizing  it.     Nor  is  He  of  Himself  set  down  on  the  right 
hand,  but  He  hears  the   Father  saying,  Sit  Thou  on  My  right  Ps.  110, 
hand.  *  • 

(19  )  Whosoever  says  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  are  One  Person,  be  he  anathema. 

(20.)  Whosoever,  speaking  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  Paraclete,  shall 
speak  of  the  Ingenerate  God,  be  he  anathema8. 

(21.)  Whosoever  shall  deny,  what  the  Lord  taught  us,  that  the 
Paraclete  is  other  than  the  Son,  for  He  hath  said,  And  another  Jolml4, 
Paraclete  shall  the    Father  send  to  you,  whom  I  will  ask,  be  he  16> 

(22.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  part  of  the 
Father  or  of  the  Son  2,  be  he  anathema.  3  p-  120, 

(23.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the"'  (1Gl> 
Holy  Ghost  be  three  Gods,  be  he  anathema. 

(24.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  the  Son  of  God  at  the  will  of 
God  came  to  be,  as  one  of  the  works,  be  he  anathema. 

(25.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  the  Son  was  generated,  the  Father 
not  wishing  it3,  be  he  anathema.     For  not  by  compulsion,  forced3  p.jis, 
by  physical  necessity,  did  the  Father,  as  He  wished  not,  generate11'  ('•) 
the  Son,  but  He  at  once  willed,  and,  after  generating  Him  from 
Himself  apart  from  time  and  passion,  manifested  Him. 

(26.)  Whosoever  shall  say  that  the  Son  isingenerate  and  unori- 
ginate,  as  if  speaking  of  two  unoriginate  and  two  ingenerate,  and 
making  two  G  ods,  be  he  anathema.    For  the  Son  is  the  Head,  which 
is  the  origin  of  all:  and  Godisthe  Head,  which  is  the  origin  of  Christ4;4  p.  98, 
for  thus  to  one  unoriginate  origin  of  the  universe  do  we  religiously  cir-  fin- 
refer  all  things  through  the  Son.  P-  ^' 

(27.)  And  in  accurate  delineation  of  the  idea  of  Christianity  we"' 
say  this  again  ;  Whosoever  shall  not  say  that  Christ  is  God,  Son  of 
God,  as  being  before  ages,  and  having  subserved  the  Father  in 

8  It  was  an  expedient  of  the  Mace-  6.  But,  as  the  Arians  had  first  made 
donians  to  deny  that  the  Holy  Spirit  the  alternative  only  between  Ingenerate 
was  God  because  it  was  not  usual  to  call  and  created,  and  Athan.  de  Deer.  §.  28. 
Him  Ingenerate;  and  perhaps  to  their  supr.  p.  53,  note  g.  shews  that  gene- 
form  of  heresy  which  was  always  im-  rate  is  a  third  idea  really  distinct 
plied  in  Arianism,  and  which  began  to  from  one  and  the  other,  so  S.  Greg, 
shew  itself  formally  among  the  Semi-  Naz.  adds,  procexsivc,  Ixxopwrov,  as 
arians  ten  years  later,  this  anathema  an  intermediate  idea,  Contrasted  with 
may  be  traced.  They  asked  the  Ca-  Ingenerate,  yet  distinct  from  generate. 
tholics  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  was  In-  Orat.  xxxi.  8.  In  other  words,  Ingene- 
gencrate,  generate,  or  created,  for  into  rate  means,  not  only  not  generate,  but 
these  three  they  divided  all  things,  vid.  not  from  any  origin,  vid.  August,  de 
Basil,  in  Sabell.  et  Ar.  Horn.  xxiv.  Trin.  xv.  26. 

122  The  second  Creed  of  Sirmium,  subscribed  by  Hosius, 

COUNC.  the  framing  of  the  Universe,  but  that  from  the  timethathe  was  born 
ARIM.  Of  Mary,  from  thence  He  was  called  Christ  and  .Son,  and  took  an 


*  being  God,  be  he  anathema. 

§.  28.  15.  Casting  aside  the  whole  of  this,  as  if  they  had  discovered 
something  better,  they  propound  another  faith,  and  write  at 
Sinnium  in  Latin  what  is  here  translated  into  Greek*. 

vii.Con-  Whereas  it  has  seemed  good  that  there  should  be  some  dis- 
fession,  cussion  concerning  faith,  all  points  have  been  carefully  investi- 
or  2nd  gate(j  anj  discussed  at  Sinnium  in  the  presence  of  Valens,  and 
anT.D.  Ursacius,  and  Germanius,  and  the  rest. 

357.  It   is   held    for   certain  that   there   is   one    God,   the    Father 

Almighty,  as  also  is  preached  in  all  the  world. 

And   His   One  Only  -begotten   Son,   our   Lord   Jesus    Christ, 

generated  from  Him   before   the   ages;    and  that  we  may  not 

John20,  speak  of  two  Gods,  since  the  Lord  Himself  has  said,  /  go  to  My 

'  '  ,       Father  and  your  Father,  and  My  God  and  your  God.   On  this  account 

J^"      He  is  God  of  all,  as  also  the  Apostle  has  taught:  Is  He  God  of  the 

Kom.  3,  Jews  only,  is  He  not  also  of  the  Gentiles'?  yea  of  the  Gentiles  also:  since 

29.         there  is  one  God  who  shall  justify  the  circumcision  from  faith,  and 

the  uncircumcifiion  through  faith  ;  and  every  thing  else  agrees,  and 

has  no  ambiguity. 

But    since    many   persons   are   disturbed    by   questions   con- 

cerning what   is   called   in   Latin   "  Substantia,"  but   in    Greek 

"  Usia,"  that  is,  to  make  it  understood  more  exactly,  as  to  "  One 

in   Substance,"  or  what   is   called,  "  Like  in  substance,"  there 

ought  to  be  no  mention  of  any  of  these  at  all,  nor  exposition  of  them 

in  the  Church,  for  this  reason  and  for  this  consideration,  that  in 

divine  Scripture  nothing  is  written  about  them,  and  that  they  are 

above  men's  knowledge  and  above  men's  understanding;    and 

because  no  one  can  declare  the  Son's  generation,  as  it  is  written, 

Is.  53,  6.  Who  shall  declare  His  generation?  for  it  is  plain  that  the  Father 

only  knows  how  He  generated  the  Son,  and  again  the  Son  how 

He  has  been  generated  by  the  Father.     And  to  none  can  it  be 

a  question  that  the  Father  is  greater  :  for  no  one  can  doubt  that 

the  Father  is  greater  in  honour  and  dignity  and  Godhead,  and  in 

vi<l.        the  very  name  of  Father,  the  Son  Himself  testifying,  The  Father 

JohnlO,^,/  seni  Me  js  greaier  than   L     And  no  one  is  ignorant,  that  it 

Johnl4  1S  Catholic  doctrine,  that  there  are  two  Persons  of  Father  and 

28.       '  Son,  and  that  the  Father  is  greater,  and  the  Son  subordinated1  to 

1  iixoTt-  the  Father  together  with  all  things  which  the  Father  has  subordi- 


*  The  Creed  which  follows  was  not  calls  this  a  "  blasphemia,"  and  upon  it 

put  forth  by  a  Council,  but  at  a  meeting  followed  the  Semi-arian  Council  by  way 

of  a  few  Arian  Bishops,  and  the  author  of  protest  at  Ancyra.     St.  Hilary  tells 

was  Potamius,  Bishop  of  Lisbon.    It  is  us   that  it  was  the   Confession  which 

important  as  marking  the  open  separa-  Hosius   was   imprisoned   and   tortured 

tion  of  the  Eusebians  or  Acacians  from  into  signing.     Whether  it  is  the   one 

the  Semi-ariuns,  and  their  adoption  of  which  Pope  Liberius  signed  is  doubt- 

Anomrean  tenets.    Hilary,  who  defends  ful  ;  but  he  signed  an  Arian  Confession 

the  Eusebian  Councils  up  to  this  date,  at  this  time. 

beiuy  the  seventh  of  the  Eusebians,  Arian.  123 

nated  to  Him,  and  that  the  Father  has  no  origin,  and  is  invisible,  CHAP. 
and  immortal,  and  impassible;  but  that  the  Son  has  been  generated      IL 
from  the  Father,  God  from  God,  Light  from  Light,  and  that  His  '  *«?«- 
generation,  as  aforesaid,  no  one  knows,  but  the  Father  only.     And  *««»• 
that  the  Son  Himself  and  our  Lord  and  God,  took  flesh,  that  i»»  JJ^ 
a  body,  that  is,  man,  from  Mary  the  Virgin,  as  the  Angel  heralded 3^5^ 
beforehand ;   and  as  all  the  Scriptures  teach,  and  especially  the  Orat.  i. 
Apostle  Himself,  the  doctor  of  the  Gentiles,  Christ  took  man  of M 
Mary  the  Virgin,  through  which  He  suffered.     And  the  whole 
faith  is  summed  up l,  and  secured  in  this,  that  a  Trinity  should  ever 
be  preserved,  as  we  read  in  the  Gospel,  Go  ye  and  baptize  all  Me  Mat. 28, 
nations  in  the  Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  I'd. 
Ghost.     And  entire  and  perfect  is  the  number  of  the  Trinity;  but 
the  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Ghost,  sent  forth  through  the  Son,  came 
according  to  the  promise,  that  He  might  teach  and  sanctify  the 
Apostles  and  all  believers u. 

16.  After  drawing  up  this,  and  then  becoming  dissatisfied,  §.  29. 
they  composed  the  faith  which  to  their  shame  they  paraded 
with  "  the  Consulate."  And,  as  is  their  wont,  condemning  this 
also,  they  caused  Martinian  the  notary  to  seize  it  from  the 
parties  who  had  the  copies  of  it x.  And  having  got  the  Em- 
peror Constantius  to  put  forth  an  edict  against  it,  they  form 
another  dogma  afresh,  and  with  the  addition  of  certain 
expressions,  according  to  their  wont,  they  write  thus  in 

We  decline  not  to  bring  forward  the  authentic  faith  published  at  ix.  Con- 

u  It  will  be  observed  that  this  Con-  Sardican   Confession,  (vid.   above,   pp.  ciaA.D. 
fession;    1.  by  denying  u  two  Gods,"  84,  85,  note  c,)  and  turns  them  into  ^^' 
and  declaring  that  the  One  God  is  the  another    evidence    of   this    additional 
God  of  Christ,  implies  that  our  Lord  is  heresy  involved  in  Arianism.     "  Im- 
not  God.  2.  It  says  that  the  word  "  sub-  passibilis     Deus,"     says     Phcebadius 
stance,"  and  its  compounds,  ought  not  "  quia    Deus    Spiritus  .  .  .  non    ergo 
to  be  used  as  being  unscriptural,  mys-  passibilis  Dei  Spiritus,  licet  in  homine 
terious,    and   leading   to    disturbance ;  suo  passus."     Now  the  Sardican  Con- 
3.  it  holds  that  the  Father  is  greater  fession  is  thought  ignorant,  as  well  as 
than  the  Son  "  in  honour,  dignity,  and  unauthoritative,  (e.  g.  by  Natalis  Alex, 
godhead ;"  4.  that  the  Son  is  subordi-  Srcc.  4.  Diss.  29.)  because  it  imputes 
nate    to    the    Father    with    all    other  to  Vaiens  and  Ursacius  the  following 
things;  5.  that  it  is  the  Father's  cha-  belief,  which  he  supposes  to  be  Patripas- 
racteristic  to  be  invisible  and  impassi-  sianism,  but  which  exactly  answers  to 
ble.  On  the  last  head,  vid.  supr.  pp.  115.  this  aspect  and  representation  of  Arian  - 
1 19.  notes  f.  o.    The)'  also  say  that  our  ism:  on  o  \aya?  XKI  on  rn  yrvzufta.  xti 
Lord,hominem  suscepisse  per  quern  com-  Ir-ruv^yi  KU.}  ler^uyvi   KO.\  arifatsv  xcti 
jmsstts  est,   a    word  which  Phoebadius  civ'tinn.  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  b'.  p.  S4-J. 
condemns  in  his  remarks  on  this  Con-         x  Some    critics     suppose     that    this 
fession ;    where,  by  the  way,   he   uses  transaction  really  belongs  to  the  second 
the  word  "  spiritus"  in    the    sense    of  instead  of  the  third  Coofesstoa  of  Sir- 
Hilary   and  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  miuvn.     Socrates  connects  it  with  the 
in  a  connection  which  at  once  explains  second.  Hist.  ii.  30. 
the  obscure  words  of  the  supposititious 

124    Creed  of  Seleucia,  ninth  of  the  Eusebians,  Homcean. 

COUNC.  the  Dedication  at  Antioch  y  ;  though  certainly  our  fathers  at  that 
ARIM.  time  met  together  for  a  particular  subject  under  investigation. 
SELEU  ^ut  8*nce  "  ^ne  *n  su^stance"  and  "  Like  in  substance1/'  have 
—  '  troubled  many  persons  in  times  past  and  up  to  this  day,  and  since 
fM°'tU~  rnoreover  some  are  said  recently  to  have  devised  the  Son's  "  Un- 
'  'biftun  likeness2"  to  the  Father,  on  their  account  we  reject  "  One  in  sub- 
stance" and  "  Like  in  substance,"  as  alien  to  the  Scriptures,  but 
"  Unlike"  we  anathematize,  and  account  all  who  profess  it   as 
aliens  from  the  Church.     And  we  distinctly  confess  the  "  Like- 
ness3"  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  according  to  the  Apostle,  who 

Col.  i,    says  of  the  Son,  Who  is  the  Image  of  the  Invisible  God. 

15.  And  we  confess  and  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 

the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible. 
And  we  believe  also  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  His  Son,  gene- 
rated from  Him  impassibly  before  all  the  ages,  God  the  Word, 
God  from  God,  Only-begotten,  light,  life,  truth,  wisdom,  power, 
through  whom  all  things  were  made,  in  the  heavens  and  on  the 
earth,  whether  visible  or  invisible.  He,  as  we  believe,  at  the  end 
of  the  world,  for  the  abolishment  of  sin,  took  flesh  of  the  Holy 
Virgin,  and  was  made  man,  and  suffered  for  our  sins,  and  rose 
again,  and  was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  and  is  coming  again  in  glory,  to  judge  quick 
and  dead. 

We  believe  also  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  our  Saviour  and 
Lord  named  Paraclete,  having  promised  to  send  Him  to  the 
disciples  after  His  own  departure,  as  He  did  send;  through 
whom  He  sanctifieth  all  in  the  Church  who  believe,  and  are 
baptized  in  the  Name  of  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

But  those  who  preach  aught  beside  this  faith  the  Catholic 
Church  regards  as  aliens.  And  that  to  this  faith  that  is  equi- 
valent which  was  published  lately  at  Sirmium,  under  sanction  of 
his  religiousness  the  Emperor,  is  plain  to  all  who  read  it. 

§.  30.      17.  Having  written  thus  in  Isauria,  they  went  up  to  Constan- 
tinople z,  and  there,  as  if  dissatisfied,  they  changed  it,  as  is 

y  The  Semi-arian  majority  in  the  Letter  was  finished,  and  contain  later 

Council  had  just  before  been  confirming  occurrences  in  the  history  of  Arimi- 

the  Creed  of  the  Dedication;  hence  this  num,  than  were  contemplated  when 

beginning,  vid.supr.  p.  89,  note  o.  They  he  wrote  supra,  ch.  i.  n.  15.  init.  vid. 

had  first  of  all  oft'ered  to  the  Council  the  note  h,  in  loc.  In  this  place  Athan. 

third  Sirmian,  or  "  Confession  with  a  distinctly  says,  that  the  following  Con- 

Date,  "supr.  §.  3.  which  their  coadjutors  fession,  which  the  Acacians  from  Se- 

ofiered  at  Ariminum,  Soz.  iv.  22.  and  at  leucia  adopted  at  Constantinople,  was 

the  end  of  the  present  they  profess  that  transmitted  toAriminum,and  there  forced 

the  two  are  substantially  the  same,  upon  the  assembled  Fathers.  This  is 

They  seem  to  mean  that  they  are  both  not  inconsistent  with  what  seems  to  he 

Homoaan  or  Scriptural  Creeds  ;  they  the  fact,  that  the  Confession  was  drawn 

differ  in  that  the  latter,  as  if  to  pro-  up  at  a  Council  held  at  Nice  in  Thrace 

pitiate  the  Semi-arian  majority,  adds  near  Adrianople  in  Oct.  359,  whither 

an  anathema  upon  Anomrean  as  well  the  deputies  from  Ariminum  had  been 

as  on  the  Homoiision  and  Homreu-  summoned  by  Constantius.  vid.  Hilar. 

sion-  Fragm.  viii.  5.  There  the  deputies 

*  These  two  sections  seem  to  have  signed  it,  and  thence  they  took  it  back 

been  inserted  by  Athan.  after  his  to  Ariminum.  In  the  beginning  of  the 

Creed  of  Nice,  tenth,  signed  at  Ariminum,  Homcean.  125 

their  wont,  and  with  certain  additions  against  using  even  CHAP. 

"  Subsistence"  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  they  trans '- — 

mitted  it  to  the  Council  at  Arimiuum,  and  compelled  even 
the  Bishops  in  those  parts  to  subscribe  it,  and  those  who 
contradicted  them  they  got  banished  by  Constantius.  And 
it  runs  thus : — 

We  believe  in  One  God  the  Father  Almighty,  from  whom  are  x.  Con- 
all  things ;  fession 

And  in  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God,  begotten  from  Godat^ice 
before  all  ages  and  before  every  origin,  by  whom  all  things  were  Q°  n_ 
made,  visible  and  invisible,  and  begotten  as  only-begotten,  only  stanti- 
from  the  Father  only  %  God  from  God,  like  to  the  Father  that  nople. 
begat  Him  according  to  the  Scriptures;  whose  generation  no  one  A_-D- 
knows,  except  the  Father  alone  who  begat  Him.      He  as  we3°9-360- 
acknowledge,  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God,  the  Father  sending 
Him,  came  hither  from  the  heavens,  as  it  is  written,  for  the  un- 
doing of  sin  and  death,  and  was  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  Mary 
the  Virgin  according  to  the  flesh,  as  it  is  written,  and  conversed 
with  the  disciples,  and  having  fulfilled  the  whole  economy  ac- 
cording to  the  Father's  will,  was  crucified  and  dead  and  buried 

following  year  360  it  was  confirmed  by 
a  Council  at  Constantinople,  after  the 
termination  of  that  of  Ariminum,  and  to 
this  confirmation  Athanasius  refers. 
Socrates  says,  Hist.  ii.  37  fin.  that  they 
chose  Nice  in  order  to  deceive  the 
ignorant  with  the  notion  that  it  was 
Nicsea,  and  their  creed  the  Nicene 
faith,  and  the  place  is  actually  called 
Nicaea,  in  the  Acts  of  Ariminum  pre- 
served by  Hilary,  p.  1346.  Such  a 
measure,  whether  or  not  adopted  in  mat- 
ter of  fact,  might  easily  have  had  success, 
considering  the  existing  state  of  the 
"West.  We  have  seen,  supr.  p.  76,  note 
i,  that  S.  Hilary  had  not  heard  the 
Nicene  Creed  till  he  came  into  Asia 
Minor,  A.  D.  356.  and  he  says  of  his 
Gallic  and  British  brethren, "  O  blessed 
ye  in  the  Lord  and  glorious,  who  hold 
the  perfect  and  apostolic  faith  in  the 
profession  of  your  conscience,  and  up 
to  this  time  know  not  creeds  in  writing. 
For  ye  needed  not  the  letter,  who 
abounded  in  the  Spirit ;  nor  looked  for 
the  hand's  office  for  subscription,  who 
believed  in  the  heart,  and  professed 
with  the  mouth  unto  salvation.  Nor 
was  it  necessary  for  you  as  bishops  to 
read,  what  was  put  into  your  hands  as 
noophytes  on  your  regeneration.  But 
necessity  hath  brought  in  the  usage, 
the  creeds  should  be  expounded  and 
subscriptions  attached.  For  when  what 

our  conscience  holds  is  in  danger,  then 
the  letter  is  required ;  nor  surely  is 
there  reason  against  writing  what  there 
is  health  in  confessing."  de  Syn.  63.  It 
should  be  added  that  at  this  Council 
Ulphilas  the  Apostle  of  the  Goths,  who 
had  hitherto  followed  the  Council  of 
Nicsea,  conformed,  and  thus  became 
the  means  of  spreading  through  his 
countrymen  the  Creed  of  Ariminum. 

3  ftovtt  «*  pheu.  Though  this  is  an 
Homcean  or  Acacian,  not  an  Anomrean 
Creed,  this  phrase  may  be  considered  a 
symptom  of  Anomcean  influence  ;  petes 
Trttqat.,  or  wra,  ft,otev  being  one  special  for- 
mula adopted  by  Eunomius,  explanatory 
of  ftoveytvtis ,  in  accordance  with  the  ori- 
ginal Arian  theory,  mentioned  de  Deer. 
§.  7.  supra,  p.  12.  that  the  Son  was  the 
one  instrument  of  creation.  Eunomius 
said  that  He  alone  was  created  by  the 
Father  alone ;  all  other  things  being 
created  by  the  Father,  not  alone,  but 
through  Him  whom  alone  He  had  first 
created,  vid.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  25.  p.  239. 
St.  Basil  observes  that,  if  this  be  a  true 
sense  of  (lovoyitvit •,  then  no  man  is  such, 
e.  g.  Isaac,  as  being  born  of  two,  contr. 
Eunom.ii.  21.  Acacius  has  recourse  to 
Gnosticism,  and  illustrates  the  Arian 
sense  by  the  contrast  of  the  <r£«/3*X»j  of 
the  ^Eons,  which  as  described  supra, 
p.  97,  note  h,  was  ix  *o\\uv,  ap.  Epiph, 
Har.  72.  7.  p.  839. 

!•><>  Creed  of  Ant iocli, 

CouNc.and  descended  to  the  parts  below  the  earth;   at  whom  hell  itself 

A  HIM.  shuddered :    who  also  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  and 

SEI/E*    ab°de  with  tne  disciples,  and,  forty    days   being  fulfilled,  was 

-"  taken  up  into  the  heavens,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the 

Father,  to  come  in  the  last  day  of  the  resurrection  in  the  Father's 

glory,  that  He  may  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works. 

And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God 

Himself,  Christ,  our  Lord  and  God,  promised  to  send  to  the  race 

of  man,  as  Paraclete,  as  it  is  written,  "  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which 

He  sent  unto  them  when  He  had  ascended  into  the  heavens." 

But  the  name  of  "  Substance,"  which  was  set  down  by  the 
Fathers  in  simplicity,  and,  being  unknown  by  the  people,  caused 
offence,  because  the  Scriptures  contain  it  not,  it  has  seemed  good 
to  take  away,  and  for  the  future  to  make  no  mention  of  it  at  all  ; 
since  the  divine  Scriptures  have  made  no  mention  of  the  Sub- 
stance of  Father  and  Son.  For  neither  ought  Subsistence  to  be 
named  concerning  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  But  we  say 
that  the  Son  is  Like  the  Father,  as  the  divine  Scriptures  say  and 
teach ;  and  all  the  heresies,  both  those  which  have  been  afore 
condemned  already,  and  whatever  are  of  modern  date,  being 
contrary  to  this  published  statement,  be  they  anathema h. 

§.  31.      18.  However,  they  did  not  stand  even  to  this;  for  coming 
fession.n~  d°wn  fr°m  Constantinople  to  Antioch,  they  were  dissatisfied 
at  Anti-  that  they  had  written  at  all  that  the  Son  was  "  Like  the 
A°  5.      Father,  as  the  Scriptures  say;1'  and  putting  their  ideas  upon 
361  •       paper,  they  began  reverting  to  their  first  doctrines,  and  said 
that  "  the  Son  is  altogether  unlike  the  Father,"  and   that 
the  "  Son  is  in  no  manner  like  the  Father,"  and  so  much 
did  they  change,  as  to  admit  those  who  spoke  the  Arian 
doctrine  nakedly  and  to  deliver  to  them  the  Churches  with 
licence  to  bring  forward  the  words  of  blasphemy  with  im- 
punity0.    Because  then    of  the   extreme    shamelessness   of 

b  Here  as  before,  instead  of  speaking  as  well  as  the  Greek  original.   This  cir- 

ofArianism,  the  Confession  anathema-  cumstance   might  be    added,  to   those 

tizeso//heresies.  vid.supr.p.  108,  note  g.  enumerated  supra,  p.  69,  &c.  to  shew 

It  will  be  observed,  that  for  "  Like  in  all  that  in  the  Nicene  formulary  substance 

things,"  which  was  contained   in  the  and  subsistence  are  synonymous. 
Confession    (third    Sirmian)  first   sub-         c  Acacius,  Eudoxius,  and  the  rest, 

mitted   to  the    Ariminian   Fathers,  is  after   ratifying   at  Constantinople   the 

substituted  simply  "  Like."    Moreover,  Creed  framed  at  Nice  and  subscribed 

they  include  hypostasis  or  subsistence,  at  Ariminum,  appear  next  at  Antioch 

though  a  Scripture  term,  in  the  list  of  a  year  and  a  half  later,  when    they 

proscribed  symbols,  vid.  also  ad  Afros,  throw  off  the  mask,  and,  avowing  the 

4.   The  object  of  suppressing  urea-rains,  AnomoDan  Creed,  "  revert,"  as  St.  Atha- 

seems  to  have  been  that,since  the  Creed,  nasius  says,  "  to  their  first  doctrines," 

which  was  written  in  Latin,  was  to  go  to  i.  e.  those  with  which  Arius  started. 

Ariminum,  the  West  might  be  forced  to  The  Anomccan  doctrine,  it  may  be  ob- 

denjr  the  Latin  version  or  equivalent  of  served,  is  directly  opposed  rather  to  the 

«>oai;'<™»,unius  substantial,  or  hypostasis,  Homreusian  than  to  the  Homoiision,  as 

eleventh  of  the  Eitscbiam,  Anomaxin. 


their  blasphemy  they  were  called  by  all  Anomceans,  having  CHAP. 
also  the  name  of  Exucontian d,  and  the  heretical  Constautius  — 
for  the  patron  of  their  ungodliness,  who  persisting  up  to  the 
end  in  irreligion,  and  on  the  point  of  death,  thought  good 
to  be  baptized6;   not  however  by  religious  men,  but  by 
Euzoius {,  who  for  his  Arianism  had  been  deposed,  not  once, 
but  often,  both  when  he  was  a  deacon,  and  when  he  was  in 
the  see  of  Antioch. 

19.  The  forementioned  parties  then  had  proceeded  thus  far,  §.  32. 
when  they  were  stopped  and  deposed.  But  well  I  know,  not  even 
under  these  circumstances  will  they  stop,  as  many  as  have  now 
dissembled8,  but  they  will  always  be  making  parties  against 

indeed  the  very  symbols  shew;  u  unlike 
in  substance,"  being  the  contrary  to 
"  like  in  substance."  It  doubtless 
frightened  the  Semi-arians,  and  hast- 
ened their  return  to  the  Catholic  doc- 

d  From  i|  tlx,  ovruv,  (l  out  of  no- 
thing," one  of  the  original  Arian  posi- 
tions concerning  the  Son.  Theodoret 
says,  that  they  were  also  called  Exa- 
cionitee,  from  the  nature  of  their  place 
of  meeting,  Haer.  iv.  3.  and  Du  Cange 
confirms  it  so  far  as  to  shew  that  there 
was  a  place  or  quarter  of  Constantinople 
called  Exocionium  or  Exacionium. 

e  At  this  critical  moment  Constantius 
died,  when  the  cause  of  truth  was  only 
not  in  the  lowest  state  of  degradation, 
because  a  party  was  in  authority  and 
vigour  who  could  reduce  it  to  a  lower 
still ;  the  Latins  committed  to  an  Anti- 
Catholic  Creed,  the  Pope  a  rene- 
gade, Hosius  fallen  and  dead,  Atha- 
nasius  wandering  in  the  deserts,  Arians 
in  the  sees  of  Christendom,  and  their 
doctrine  growing  in  blasphemy,  and  their 
profession  of  it  in  boldness,  every  day. 
TheEmperorhad  come  to  the  throne  when 
almost  a  boy,  and  at  this  time  was  but 
44  years  old.  In  the  ordinary  course  of 
things,  he  might  have  reigned  till,  hu- 
manly speaking,  orthodoxy  was  extinct. 
This  passage  shews  that  Athanasius 
did  not  insert  these  sections  till  two 
years  after  the  composition  of  the  work 
itself;  for  Constantius  died  A.D.  361. 

f  Euzoius,  at  this  time  Arian  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  was  excommunicated  with 
Arius  in  Egypt  and  at  Nicffia,  and  was 
restored  with  him  to  the  Church 
at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.  He  suc- 
ceeded at  Antioch  S  Meletius,  who  on 
being  placed  in  that  see  by  the  Arians 

professed  orthodoxy,  and  was  forthwith 
banished  by  them. 

s  vvixgivavro.  hypocrites,  is  almost 
a  title  of  the  Arians,  (with  an  ap- 
parent allusion  to  1  Tim.  iv.  2.  vid. 
Socr.  i.  p.  13.  Athan.  Orat.  i.  §.  8.) 
and  that  in  various  senses.  The  first 
meaning  is  that,  being  heretics,  they 
nevertheless  used  orthodox  phrases  and 
statements  to  deceive  and  seduce  Catho- 
lics. Thus  the  term  is  used  by  Alex- 
ander in  the  beginning  of  the  contro- 
versy, vid.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  pp.  729. 
746.*  Again,  it  implies  that  they  agreed 
with  Arius,  but  would  not  confess  it ; 
professed  to  be  Catholics,  but  would 
not  anathematize  him.  vid.  Athan.  ad 
Ep.  ^Eg.  20.  or  alleged  untruly  the 
Nicene  Council  as  their  ground  of  com- 
plaint, infr.  §.  39.  Again,  it  is  used  of 
the  hollowness  and  pretence  of  their 
ecclesiastical  proceedings,  with  the  Em- 
peror at  their  head  ;  which  were  a  sort 
of  make-belief  of  spiritual  power,  or 
piece  of  acting,  iptftMTtfyyiifut.  Ep. 
Encycl.  2  and  6.  It  also  means  general 
insincerity,  as  if  they  were  talking 
about  what  they  did  not  understand, 
and  did  not  realize  what  they  said,  and 
were  blindly  implicating  themselves  in 
evils  of  a  fearful  character.  Thus 
Athan.  calls  them  TOV;  rm  'Agtiet/ paviug 
vvoxprcis'  Orat.  ii.  §.  1.  imt.  and  he 
speaks  of  the  evil  spirit  making  them 
his  sport,  <r<i7i  vxox^ivo pivots  Tt»  f&a.vtctv 
uvrov.  ad  Scrap,  i.  1.  And  hence  fur- 
ther it  is  applied,  as  in  this  place,  though 
with  severity,  yet  to  those  who  were 
near  the  truth,  and  who,  though  in 
sin,  would  at  length  come  to  it  or  not, 
according  as  the  state  of  their  hearts 
was.  He  is  here  anticipating  the  re- 
turn into  the  Church  of  those  whom  he 

128  More  Creeds  in  prospect  till  they  submit  to  the  Nicene. 

COUNC.  the  truth,  until  they  return  to  themselves  and  say,  "  Let  us 

AAKT>'  rise  and  g°  t°  our  fathers,  and  say  unto  them,  We  anathe- 

SKLFU.  matize  the  Arian  heresy,  and  we  acknowledge  the  Nicene 

Council11:"  for  against  this  is  their  quarrel.     Who  then,  with 

ever  so  little  understanding,  will  bear  them  any  longer  ?  who, 

on  hearing  in  every  Council  some  things  taken  away  and 

others  added,  but  comprehends  their  treachery  and  secret 

depravity  against  Christ  ?  who  on  seeing  them  embodying  to 

so  great  a  length  both  their  profession  of  faith,  and  their  own 

exculpation,  but  sees  that  they  are  giving  sentence  against 

1  p.  G,     themselves1,  and    studiously  writing  much  which    may   be 

s  °'  likely  by  an  officious  display  and  an  abundance  of  words 
to  seduce  the  simple  and  hide  what  they  are  in  point  of 
heresy  ?  But  as  the  heathen,  as  the  Lord  said,  using  vain 
words  in  their  prayers,  are  nothing  profited;  so  they  too,  after 
all  their  words  were  spent,  were  not  able  to  extinguish  the 
judgment  pronounced  against  the  Arian  heresy,  but  were 
convicted  and  deposed  instead ;  and  rightly ;  for  which  of 
their  formularies  is  to  be  accepted  by  the  hearer?  or 
with  what  confidence  shall  they  be  catechists  to  those  who 
come  to  them  ?  for  if  they  all  have  one  and  the  same  mean- 

2  p.  no,  ing,  what  is  the  need  of  many  2  ?    But  if  need  has  arisen  of  so 

many,  it  follows  that  each  by  itself  is  deficient,  not  complete ; 
and  they  establish  this  point  better  than  we  can,  by  their  in- 

3  P.  81,  novating  on  them  all  and  re-making  them3.     And  the  number 

of  their  Councils,  and  the  difference  of  their  statements  is  a 
proof  that  those  who  were  present  at  them,  while  at  variance 
with  the  Nicene,  are  yet  too  feeble  to  harm  the  Truth. 

thus  censures.  In  this  sense,  though  monasteries  of  the  deserts,  in  close  con- 
with  far  more  severity  in  what  he  says,  cealment,  (unless  we  suppose  he  really 
the  writer  of  a  Tract,  imputed  to  had  issued  thence  and  was  present  at 
Athan.  against  the  Catholicising  Semi-  Seleucia,)  this  is  a  remarkable  instance 
arians  of  363,  entitles  it  u  on  the  hypo-  of  accurate  knowledge  of  the  state  of 
crisy  of  Meletius  and  Eusebius  of  Sa-  feeling  in  the  heretical  party,  and  of 
mosata."  It  is  remarkable  that  what  foresight.  From  his  apparent  want  of 
Athan.  here  predicts  was  fulfilled  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Anomceans,  and  his 
letter,  even  of  the  worst  of  these  "  by-  unhesitatingly  classing  them  with  the 
pocrites."  For  Acacius  himself,  who  Arians,  it  would  seem  in  a  great 
in  361  signed  the  Anomcean  Confession  measure  to  arise  from  intimate  corn- 
above  recorded,  was  one  of  those  very  prehension  of  the  doctrine  itself  in  dis- 
men  who  accepted  the  Homoiision  with  pute  and  of  its  bearings.  There  had 
an  explanation  in  363.  been  at  that  time  no  parallel  of  a  great 

h  Considering  that  Athanasius  had  aberration  and  its  issue, 
now  been  for  several  years  among  the 


ON    THE    SYMBOLS   "  OF    THE    SUBSTANCE"    AND    "  ONE    IN 

We  must  look  at  the  sense  not  the  wording1.  The  offence  excited  is  at  the 
sense;  meaning  of  the  Symhols;  the  question  of  their  not  being  in 
Scripture.  Those  who  hesitate  only  at  the  latter  of  the  two,  not  to  he 
considered  Arians.  Reasons  why  "  one  in  suhstance"  better  than  "  like 
in  suhstance,"  yet  the  latter  maybe  interpreted  in  a  good  sense.  Explana- 
tion of  the  rejection  of  "  one  in  substance"  by  the  Council  which 
condemned  Samosatene;  use  of  the  word  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria; 
parallel  variation  in  the  use  of  Ingenerate;  quotation  from  Ignatius  and 
another;  reasons  for  using  "one  in  substance;"  objections  to  it; 
examination  of  the  word  itself;  further  documents  of  the  Council  of 

1.  BUT  since  they  are  thus  minded  both  towards  each  other  CHAP. 

and  towards  those  who  preceded  them,  proceed  we  to  ascer- — 

tain  from  them  what  extravagance  they  have  seen,  or  what  ' 
they  complain  of  in  the  received  phrases,  that  they  should  thus 
disobey  their  fathers,  and  contend  against  an  Ecumenical 
Council a  ?  "  The  phrases  c  of  the  substance'  and  c  one  in 
substance,' "  say  they,  "  do  not  please  us,  for  they  are  an 
offence  to  some  and  a  trouble  to  many  V  This  then  is  what 

a  The   subject  before  us,  naturally  nations  as  might  clear  the  way  for  a 

rises   out  of  what    has    gone    before,  re-union  of  Christendom.  The  remainder 

Athan.  has   traced  out  the   course  of  of  his  work  then  is  devoted  to  the  consi- 

Arianism   to   what  seemed  to    be   its  deration  of  the  "  one  in  substance,"  (as 

result,  the  resolution  of  it  into  a  bet-  contrasted  with  "like  in  substance,") 

ter  element  or  a  worse,— the  precipita-  which  had  confessedly  great  difficulties 

tion  of  what  was  really  unbelieving  in  in  it.   vid.  p.  147,  note  u. 
it   in    the    Anomoean    form,    and    the         b    This    is    only   stating   what    the 

gradual  purification  of  that  Semi-arian-  above  Confessions  have  said  again  and 

ism   which   prevailed   in   the   Eastern  again.  The  objections  made  to  it  were, 

Sees.  vid.  p.  103,  note  t.     The  Ano-  1.  that  it  was  not  in  Scripture ;  2.  that 

moean  creed  was  hopeless ;  but  with  the  it  had  been   disowned   by  the   Antio- 

Semi-arians  all  that  remained  was  the  chene  Council  against  Paul  of  Samo- 

adjustment  of  phrases.     They  had  to  sata ;    3.   that  it   was   of  a   material 

reconcile  their  minds  to  terms  which  nature,    and    belonged    to   the    Mani- 

the  Church  had  taken  from  philosophy  chees ;    4.  that  it  was  of  a  Sabellian 

and  adopted  as  her  own.     Accordingly,  tendency  ;   5.  that  it  -implied  that  the 

Athan.  goes  on  to  propose  such  expla-  divine  substance  was  distinct  from  God. 

130  They  who  held  the  doctrine,  would  admit  the  terms  ofNic&a . 

COUNC.  they  allege  in  their  writings ;  but  one  may  reasonably 
AIJS1^1'  answer  them  thus:  If  the  very  words  were  by  themselves  a 

SELEU.  cause  of  offence  to  them,  it  must  have  followed,  not  that 
some  only  should  have  offended,  and  many  troubled,  but  that 
we  also  and  all  the  rest  should  have  been  affected  by  them  in 
the  same  way ;  but  if  on  the  contrary  all  men  are  well  con- 
tent with  the  words,  and  they  who  wrote  them  were  no 
ordinary  persons  but  men  who  came  together  from  the  whole 
world,  and  to  these  testify  in  addition  the  400  Bishops  and 
more  who  have  now  met  at  Ariminum,  does  not  this  plainly 
prove  against  those  who  accuse  the  Council,  that  the  terms 
are  not  in  fault,  but  the  perverseness  of  those  who  misinter- 
pret them  ?  How  many  men  read  divine  Scripture  wrongly, 
and  as  thus  conceiving  it,  find  fault  with  the  Saints  ?  such 
were  the  Jews  formerly,  who  rejected  the  Lord,  and  the 

1  vid-      Manichees  at  present  who  blaspheme  the  Law  ' ;  yet  are  not 

8. iv. 23.  the  Scriptures  the  cause  to  them,  but  their  own  evil  humours. 
If  then  ye  can  shew  the  terms  to  be  actually  unsound,  do  so 
and  let  the  proof  proceed,  and  drop  the  pretence  of  offence 
created,  lest  you  come  into  the  condition  of  the  Pharisees 
formerly,  when,  on  pretending  offence  at  the  Lord's  teaching, 

Mat.  15,  He  said?  Every  plant,  which  My  heavenly  Father  hath  not 
planted,  shall  he  rooted  up.  By  which  He  shewed  that  not 
the  words  of  the  Father  planted  by  Him  were  really  an 
offence  to  them,  but  that  they  misinterpreted  good  words 
and  offended  themselves.  And  in  like  manner  they  who  at 
that  time  blamed  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostle,  impeached, 
not  Paul,  but  their  own  deficient  learning  and  distorted 

§•  34.  2.  For  answer  what  is  much  to  the  purpose,  Who  are  they 
whom  you  pretend  are  offended  and  troubled  at  these  terms? 
of  those  who  are  religious  towards  Christ  not  one ;  on  the 
contrary  they  defend  and  maintain  them.  But  if  they  are 
Arians  who  thus  feel,  what  wonder  they  should  be  distressed 
at  words  which  destroy  their  heresy  ?  for  it  is  not  the  terms 
which  offend  them,  but  the  proscription  of  their  irreligion 

r  P/  J2,  which    afflicts    them  2.       Therefore   let   us    have   no    more 

p.  36,     murmuring  against  the  Fathers,  nor  pretence  of  this  kind; 

P?138,   or  nextc  y°u  wiH  t>e  making  complaints  of  the  Lord's  Cross, 

ref.  4.  c  £gKi  vi(jj  Orat.  i.  §.  15.  iv.  §.  10.  Scrap,  ii.  1.  nai^eg.  de  Deer.  §.  15.  init. 

"  Of  God"  if  more  than  icords,  means  "of  His  Substance.''1 131 

that  it  is  to  Jews  an  offence  and  to  Gentiles  foolishness,  as  CHAP. 
said  the  Apostle d.     But  as  the  Cross  is  not  faulty,  for  to  us — ;— 1- 
who  believe  it  is  Christ  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  23. 24. ' 
God,  though   Jews   rave,  so   neither   are   the  terms  of  the 
Fathers  faulty,  but  profitable  to  those  who  rightly  read,  and 
subversive  of  all  irreligion,  though  the  Arians  so  often  burst 1 '  P-  29> 
with  rage  as  being  condemned  by  them. 

3.  Since  then  the  pretence  that  persons  are  offended  does  not 
hold,  tell  us  yourselves,  why  is  it  you  are  not  pleased  with 
the  phrase  "  of  the  substance,"  (this  must  first  be  enquired 
about,)  when   you   yourselves  have  written  that  the  Son  is 
generated  from  the  Father  ?    If  when  you  name  the  Father, 
or  use  the  word  "  God,"  you  do  not  signify  substance,  or 
understand  Him  according  to  substance,  who  is  that  He  is, 

but  signify  something  else  about  Him2,  not  to  say  inferior,2?.  38, 
then  you  should  not  have  written  that  the  Son  was  from  the  no 
Father,  but  from  what  is  about  Him  or  in  Him6;   and  so, 
shrinking  from  saying  that  God  is  truly  Father,  and  making 
Him  compound  who  is  simple,  in  a  material  way,  you  will 
be  authors  of  a  new  blasphemy.     And,  with  such  ideas,  do 
you  of  necessity  consider  the  Word  and  the  title  "  Son,"  not 
as  a  substance  but  as  a  name3  only;  and  in  consequence  the3P-  4l> 
views  ye   have   ye  hold  as   far  as    names  only,  and   your  p.  114', 
statements   are   not  positive  points   of  faith,   but   negative note  b- 

4.  But  this  is  more  like  the  crime  of  the  Sadducees,  and  §.35. 
of  those  among  the  Greeks  who  had  the  name  of  Atheists. 

It  follows  that  you  deny  that  creation  too  is  the  handywork 
of  God  Himself  that  is ;  at  least,  if  "  Father"  and  "  God"  do 

d  "  The  Apostle"  is  a  common  title  called  the  Apostle.  Orat.  i.  47. 

of  St.  Paul  in  antiquity.     E.  g.  "  By  e   Vid.  Orat.  i.  $.  15.  supra,  de  Deer, 

partaking  of  the  Son  Himself,  we  are  p.  38,  note  z.     Thus  Eusebius  calls  our 

said  to  partake  of  God,  and  this  is  that  Lord  "  the   light  throughout  the  uni- 

which  Peter  has  said,  '  that  ye  might  verse,  moving  round  (cipQi)  the  Father." 

be  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,'  as  de    Laud.    Const,   p.   501.     It   was   a 

says  also  the  Apostle,  "  Know  ye  not  Platonic  idea,  which  he  gained  from 

that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,'  &c."  Plotinus;    whom  he  quotes  speaking  of 

Orat.  i.  §.  16.     "  "When  '  the  Apostle  his    second    Principle    as    "  radiance 

is  mentioned,'  says  S.  Augustine,  if  it  around,  from  Him  indeed,  but  from  one 

is  not  specified  which,  Paul  only  is  un-  who    remains   what   He  was  ;    as  the 

derstood,  because  he  is  more  celebrated  sun's  bright  light   circling   around  it, 

from  the  number  of  his  Epistles,  and  (wj^tav,)  ever  generated  from  it,  which 

laboured  more  abundantly  than  all  the  nevertheless   remains."   Evang.    Prop, 

rest."  ad  Bonifac.  iii.  3.     St.  Peter  is  xi.  17.  vid.  above,  p.  51,  note  b. 

K  2 

132      If  "of  God"  not  "of  Substance,"  Christ  a  creature. 

CouNc.not  signify  the  very  substance  of  Him  that  is,  but  something 
AND '  else,  which   you  imagine :    which   is    irreligious,  and  most 
SELEU.  shocking  even  to  think  of.     But  if,  when  we  hear  it  said,  / 
^4X-  3j    am  that  I  am,  and  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven 
Gen.  i,  and  the  earth,  and  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one 
Deut.  6  Lord,  and  Thus  saith  the  Lord  Almighty,  we  understand 
nothing  else  than  the  very  simple,  and  blessed,  and  incom- 
prehensible substance  itself  of  Him  that  is,  (for  though  we 
be  unable  to  master  that  He  is,  yet  hearing  "  Father,"  and 
"God,"  and  "Almighty,"  we  understand  nothing  else  to  be 

1  p.  34,  meant  than  the  very  substance  of  Him  that  is  f ;)  and  if  ye 

too  have  said,  that  the  Son  is  from  God,  it  follows  that  you 
have  said  that  He  is  from  the  "substance"  of  the  Father. 
And  since  the  Scriptures  precede  you  which  say,  that  the 
Lord  is  Son  of  the  Father,  and  the  Father  Himself  precedes 

Mat.  3,  them,  who  says,  This  is  My  beloved  Son,  and  a  son  is  no 
other  than  the  offspring  from  his  father,  is  it  not  evident 
that  the  Fathers  have  suitably  said  that  the  Son  is  from  the 
Father's  substance  ?  considering  that  it  is  all  one  to  say  in  an 
orthodox  sense  "  from  God,"  and  to  say  "  from  the  substance." 
For  all  the  creatures,  though  they  be  said  to  be  generated 
from  God,  yet  are  not  from  God  as  the  Son  is;  for  they  are 

Gen. 1,1.  not  offsprings  in  their  nature,  but  works.  Thus,  it  is  said,  in 
the  beginning  God,  not "  generated,"  but  made  the  heaven  and 
the  earth,  and  all  that  is  in  them.  And  not,  "  who  generates," 

Ps.  104,  but  who  maketh  His  angels  spirits,  and  His  ministers  a 

iCoY.s,flame  °f  ftre-     And  though  the  Apostle  has  said,  One  God, 

from  whom  all  things,  yet  he  says  not  this,  as  reckoning  the 

Son  with  other  things ;  but,  whereas  some  of  the  Greeks  con- 

2  de       sidera  that  the  creation  was  held  together  by  chance,  and  from 
p  33 J     the  combination  of  atoms3,  and  spontaneously  from  elements 
36E  leu  °^  s*m^ar  structure 4,  and  has  no  cause ;  and  others  consider 
ms.       that  it  came  from  a  cause,  but  not  through  the  Word ;  and 
gtrnaasXa~each  heretic  has  imagined  things  at  his  will,  and  tells  his 

fables  about  the  creation ;  on  this  account  the  Apostle  was 

obliged  to  introduce  from  God,  that  he  might  thereby  certify 

the  Maker,  and  shew  that  the  universe  was  framed  at  His 

i  Cor  8  W*^<     ^nd  accordingly  he  straightway  proceeds :   And  one 

6.        '  Lord  Jesus   Christ,   through   whom   all  things,  by  way  of 

pP54fin.'excepting  the  Son  from  that  "allV  (for  what  is  called  God's 

Objection  thai  the  Nicene  Symbols  are  unscript-ural.     133 

work,  is  all  done  through  the   Son ;  and  it  is  not  possible  CHAP. 

that  the  things  framed  should  have  one  generation  with  their ' 

Framer,)  and  by  way  of  teaching  that  the  phrase  of  God, 
which  occurs  in  the  passage,  has  a  different  sense  in  the 
case  of  the  works,  from  what  it  bears  when  used  of  the 
Son ;  for  He  is  offspring,  and  they  are  works :  and  therefore 
He,  the  Son,  is  the  proper  offspring  of  His  substance,  but 
they  are  the  handy  work  of  His  will. 

5.  The  Council,  then,  comprehending  this1,  and  aware  of§.  36. 
the  different  senses  of  the  same  word,  that  none  should  sup-  p^r 
pose,  that  the  Son  was  said  to  be  from  God  like  the  creation,  §•  19- 
wrote  with  greater  explicitness,  that  the  Son  was  "  from  the p* "" 
substance."   For  this  betokens  the  true  genuineness  of  the  Son 
towards  the  Father;  whereas,  in  its  being  said  simply  "from 
God,"  only  the  Creator's  will  concerning  the  framing  of  all 
is  signified.     If  then  they  too  had  this  meaning,  when  they 
wrote  that  the  Word  was  "  from  the  Father,"  they  had  no- 
thing to  complain  of  in  the  Council 2 ;  but  if  they  meant  "  of2  p.  iso, 
God,"  in  the  instance  of  the  Son,  as  it"  is  used  of  the  crea- ref* 2* 
tion,  then  as  understanding  it  of  the  creation,  they  should 
not  name  the  Son,  or  they  will  be  manifestly  mingling  blas- 
phemy with   religiousness;   but  either   they  have   to   cease 
reckoning  the  Lord  with  the  creatures,  or  at  least  to  make 
statements  not  unworthy,  and  not  unbecoming  of  the  Son. 
For  if  He  is  a  Son,  He  is  not  a  creature ;  but  if  a  creature, 
then  not  a  Son.     Since  these  are  their  views,  perhaps  they 
will  be  denying  the  Holy  Laver  also,  because  it  is  adminis- 
tered into  Father  and  into  Son ;  and  not  into  Creator  and 
Creature,  as  they  account  it. 

6.  "  But,"  they  say,  "  all  this  is  not  written  :  and  we  reject 
these  words  as  un scriptural."  But  this,  again,  is  an  unblush- 
ing excuse  in  their  mouths.  For  if  they  think  every  thing 
must  be  rejected  which  is  not  written,  wherefore,  when  the 
Arian  party  invent  such  a  heap  of  phrases,  not  from  Scrip- 
ture3, "  Out  of  nothing,"  and  "  the  Son  was  not  before  His  gene- 3  p-  31, 
ration,"  and  "Once  He  was  not,"  and  "He  is  alterable," nc 
and  "  the  Father  is  ineffable  and  invisible  to  the  Son,"  and 
"the  Son  knows  not  even  His  own  substance;"  and  all  that 
Arius  has  vomited  in  his  light  and  irreligious  Thalia,  why 
do  not  they  speak  against  these,  but  rather  take  their  part; 

134      Arian  inconsistency  in  refusing  theological  terms. 

COUNC.  and  on  that  account  contend  with  their  own  Fathers  ?     And, 
AARN!^'  in  what  Scripture  did  they  on  their  part  find  "  In  generate," 
SELEU.  and  the  name  of  "  substance,"  and  "  there  are  three  subsist- 
ences," and  "  Christ  is  not  very  God,"  and  "  He  is  one  of  the 
hundred  sheep,"  and  "  God's  Wisdom  is  ingenerate  and  in- 
originate,  but  the  created  powers  are  many,  of  which  Christ  is 
1  «upr.    one1  ?"  Or  how,  when  in  the  so-called  Dedication,  the  party  of 
•p.  108  Acacius  and  Eusebius  used  expressions  not  in  Scripture2, and 
note  b.    said  that  "  the  First-born  of  the  creation"  was  "  the  unvarying 
Image  of  the  divine  substance,  and  power,  and  will  of  God," 
do  they  complain  of  the  Fathers,  for  making  mention  of  un- 
scriptural  expressions,  and  especially  of  substance  ?    For  they 
ought  either  to  complain  of  themselves,  or  to  find  no  fault 
with  the  Fathers. 

§.  37.      7.  Now,  if  certain  others  made  excuses  of  the  expressions  of 
the  Council,  it  might  perhaps  have  been  set  down,  either  to 
ignorance  or  to  reverence.    There  is  no  question,  for  instance, 
about  George  of  Cappadociaf,  who  was  expelled  from  Alex- 
andria ;  a  man,  without  character  in  years  past,  nor  a  Chris- 
tian in  any  respect ;  but  only  pretending  to  the  name  to  suit 
i  Tim.  the  times,  and  thinking  religion  to  be  a  means  of  gain.    And 
therefore  reason  is  there,  none  should  complain  of  his  making 
mistakes  about  the  faith,  considering  he  knows  neither  what 
he  says,  nor  whereof  he  affirms ;  but,  according  to  the  text, 
Tid.       goeth  after  all,  as  a  bird.     But  when  Acacius,  and  Eudoxius, 
22.  23. '  and  Patrophilus  say  this,  do  not  they  deserve  the  strongest 
reprobation?    for    while    they   write    what   is    unscriptural 


Epiphania  of  Cilicia,  at  a  fuller's  mill,  he  tried  to  persuade  Constantius,  that  as 

He  was  appointed   pork-contractor  to  the  successor  of  Alexander  its  founder 

the  army,  as  mentioned  above,  $.  12.  he  was  proprietor  of  the  soil  and  had  a 

and   being  detected  in  defrauding  the  claim  upon  the  houses  built  on  it.  Am- 

government,   he  fled   to  Egypt.   Naz.  inian.  xxii.  11.     Epiphanius   tells  us, 

Orat.  21.   16.     How   he  be'came    ac-  Ha3r.  76.  1.  that  he  made  a  monopoly  of 

quainted  with  the  Eusebian  party  does  the  nitre  of  Egypt,  farmed  the  beds  of 

not  appear.  Sozomen  tells  us  that  he  re-  papyrus,  and  the  salt  lakes,  and  even 

commended  himself  to  the  see  of  Alex-  contrived  a  profit  from  the  undertakers, 

andria,  by  his  zeal  for  Arianism  and  his  His  atrocious  cruelties  to  the  Catholics 

ro  fyetfrfyiev ;  and  Gregory  calls  him  the  are  well  known.     Yet  he  seems  to  have 

hand  of  the  heresy  as  Acacius  (?)  was  the  collected  a  choice  library  of  philosophers 

tongue.  Orat.  21.  21.   He  made  himself  and  poets  and  Christian  writers,  which 

so  obnoxious  to  the  Alexandrians,  that  Julian  seized  on  ;  Pitha>us  in  loc.  Am- 

in  the  reign  of  Julian  he  was  torn  to  mian.  also  Gibbon,  ch.  23. 

Likeness  in  Substance  the  only  true  likeness.        135 

themselves,  and  have  accepted  many  times,  the  term  "  sub-  CHAP. 

stance"  as  suitable,  especially  on  the  ground  of  the  letter  of — 

Eusebius1,  they  now  blame  their  predecessors  for  using  terms  ^P-62 
of  the  same  kind.  Nay,  though  they  say  themselves,  that  the 
Son  is  "God  from  God,"  and  "Living  Word,"  "Unvarying 
Image  of  the  Father's  substance ;"  they  accuse  the  Nicene 
Bishops  of  saying,  that  He  who  was  begotten  is  "  of  the  sub- 
stance" of  Him  who  begat  Him,  and  "One  in  substance"  with 
Him.  But  what  marvel  the  conflict  with  their  predecessors  and 
their  own  Fathers,  when  they  are  inconsistent  to  themselves, 
and  fall  foul  of  each  other  ?  For  after  publishing,  in  the  so- 
called  Dedication  at  Antioch,  that  the  Son  is  unvarying  Image 
of  the  Father's  substance,  and  swearing  that  so  they  held  and 
anathematizing  those  who  held  otherwise,  nay,  in  Isauria,  writ- 
ing down,  "  We  do  not  decline  the  authentic  faith  published 
in  the  Dedication  at  Antioch2,"  where  the  term  "sub-2«upr. 
stance"  was  introduced,  as  if  forgetting  all  this,  shortly  after, 
in  the  same  Isauria,  they  put  into  writing  the  very  contrary, 
saying,  We  reject  the  words  "  one  in  substance,"  and  "  like  in 
substance,"  as  alien  to  the  Scriptures,  and  demolish  the  term 
"  substance,"  as  not  contained  therein3.  ^  Sg]ir 

8.  Can  we  then  any  more  account  such  men  Christians  ?  or  §.  38. 
what  sort  of  faith  have  they  who  stand  neither  to  word  nor 
writing,  but  alter  and  change  every  thing  according  to  the 
times  ?  For  if,  O  Acacius  and  Eudoxius,  you  "  do  not 
decline  the  faith  published  at  the  Dedication,"  and  in  it  is 
written  that  the  Son  is  "Unvarying  Image  of  God's  substance," 
why  is  it  ye  write  in  Isauria,  "  we  reject  the  Like  in  sub- 
stance ?"  for  if  the  Son  is  not  like  the  Father  according  to 
substance,  how  is  He  "  unvarying  image  of  the  substance  ?" 
But  if  you  are  dissatisfied  at  having  written  "  Unvarying 
Image  of  the  substance,"  how  is  it  that  ye  "  anathematize 
those  who  say  that  the  Son  is  Unlike  ?"  for  if  He  be  not  ac- 
cording to  substance  like,  He  is  altogether  unlike  :  and  the 
Unlike  cannot  be  an  Image.  And  if  so,  then  it  does  not 
hold  that  lie  that  hath  seen  the  Son,  hath  seen  the  Fa(he 
there  being  then  the  greatest  difference  possible  between 
Them,  or  rather  the  One  being  wholly  Unlike  the  Other.  And 
Unlike  cannot  possibly  be  called  Like.  By  what  artifice  then 
do  ye  call  Unlike  like,  and  consider  Like  to  be  unlike,  and  so 

136     Arians  had  no  fixedness,  because  no  earnestness. 

COUNC.  pretend  to  say  that  the  Son  is  the  Father's  Image  ?  for  if  the  Son 

^D    be  not  like  tne  Father  in  substance,  something  is  wanting  to 

SELEU-  the  Image,  and  it  is  not  a  complete  Image,  nor  a  perfect  radi- 

Coloss.    ance  g.  How  then  read  ye,  In  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the 

John  i    Godhead  bodily?  and  from  His  fulness  have  all  we  received  ? 

16.      '  how  is  it  that  ye  expel  the  Arian  Aetius  as  an  heretic,  though 

ye  say  the  same  with  him  ?    for  thy  companion  is  he,  O 

Acacius,  and  he  became  Eudoxius's  master  in  this  so  great 

irreligion'1;   which  was  the  reason  why  Leontius  the  Bishop 

made  him  deacon,  that  using  the  name  of  the  diaconate  as 

a  sheep's  clothing,  he  might  be  able  with  impunity  to  pour 

§.  39.  forth  the  words  of  blasphemy.    What  then  has  persuaded  you 

1  p.  81,  to  contradict  each  other  l,  and  to  procure  to  yourselves  so 

great  a  disgrace  ?     You  cannot  give  any  good  account  of  it ; 

this  supposition  only  remains,  that  all  you  do  is  but  outward 

profession  and  pretence,  to  secure  the  countenance  of  Con- 

stantius  and  the  gain  from  thence  accruing.     And  ye  make 

nothing  of  accusing  the  Fathers,  and  ye  complain  outright  of 

the  expressions  as  being  unscriptural ;  and,  as  it  is  written, 

Ez.  16,   have  opened  thy  feet  to  every  one  that  passed  by;  so  as  to 

change  as  often  as  they  wish,  in  whose  pay  and  keep  you 


9.  Yet,  though  a  man  use  terms  not  in  Scripture,  it  makes  no 
difference,  so  that  his  meaning  be  religious  !.    But  the  heretic, 

§  Athan.  here  says,  that  when  they  h  Aetius  was  the  first  to  carry  out 

spoke  of  "  like,"  they  could  not  con-  Arianism  in  its  pure  Anomcean  form, 

sistently  mean  any  thing  short  of  "  like-  as  Eunomius  was  its  principal  apologist, 

ness  of  substance,"  for  this  is  the  only  He  was  horn  in  humble  life,  and  was  at 

true  likeness ;  and  that,  while  they  used  first  a  practitioner  in  medicine.     After 

Ihe  words  awa^aXXaxTa;  tlxuv,  unvary-  a  time  he  became  a  pupil  of  the  Arian 

ing  image,  to  exclude  all  essential  like-  Paulinus  ;  then  the  guest  of  Athanasius 

ness,  was  to  suppose  instead  an  image  of  Nazarbi ;  then  the  pupil  of  Leontius 

varying  utterly  from  its   original.     It  of  Antioch,  who  ordained  him  deacon? 

must  not  be  supposed  from  this  that  he  and  afterwards  deposed  him.    This  was 

approves  the  phrase  opotos  xar  ovvictv  or  in  350.     In  351  he  seems  to  have  held 

ifMtovettg,  in  this  Treatise,  for  infr.  §.  a  dispute  with  Basil  of  Ancyra,  at  Sir- 

53.   he   rejects  it   on  the  ground  that  mium ;  in  the  beginning  of  360  he  was 

when  we  speak  of  "  like,"  we   imply  formally  condemned  in  the  Council  of 

qualities,  not  substance.     According  to  Constantinople,   which    confirmed    the 

him  then  the  phrase  "unvarying  image"  Creed  of  Ariminnm,   and  just   before 

was,    strictly     speaking,     self-contra-  Eudoxius  had  been  obliged  to  anathe- 

dictory,  for   every  image   varies  from  matize  his  confession   of  faith      This 

the   original  because   it  is  an  image,  was  at  the  very  time  Athan.  wrote  the 

Yet  he  himself  frequently  uses  it,  as  present  work. 

other  Fathers,  and  Orat.  i.  $.  26.  uses  *  vid.p.31,  note  p.  And  so  S.  Gregory 

oftoto;  *%{  ovfitts-    And  all  human  terms  in  a  well-known  passage  ;   "  Why  art 

are  imperfect;    and  "image"  itself  is  thou   such  a  slave  to  the  letter,   and 

used  in  Scripture.  takest  up  with    Jewish  wisdom,   and 

Scripture  uses  terms  not  in  Scripture.  137 

though  he  use  scriptural  terms,  yet,  as  being  equally  dan-  CHAP. 
gerous  and  depraved,  shall  be  asked  in  the  words  of  the  -  IIL— 
Spirit,  Why  dost  thou  preach  My  laws,  and  takest  My  cove-  ps.  50, 
nant  in  tliy  mouth  ?  Thus  whereas  the  devil,  though  speaking  I6< 
from  the  Scriptures,  is  silenced  by  the  Saviour,  the  blessed  Paul, 
though  he  speaks  from  profane  writers,  The  Cretans  are  always  Tit.  1,2. 
liars,  and,  For  we  are  His  offspring,  and  Evil  communications  ^gcts  17> 
corrupt  good  manners,  yet  has  a  religious  meaning,  as  being  i  Cor. 
holy, — is  doctor  of  the  nations,  in  faith  and  verity,  as  having  l  ^?^' 
the   mind  of  Christ,  and  what  he   speaks,   he   utters  reli-  2,  7. 
giously.     What  then  is  there  even  plausible,  in  the  Arian 2,  \Q' 
terms,  in  which  the  caterpillar  and  the  locust l  are  preferred  to  Joel  2, 
the  Saviour,  and  He  is  reviled  with  "  Once  Thou  wast  not,"  ??'  lg 
and  "  Thou  wast  created,"  and  "  Thou  art  foreign  to  God  P.  ioi. 
in  substance,"  and,  in  a  word,  no  insult  is  spared  against 
Him  ?     On  the  other  hand,  what  good  word  have  our  Fathers 
omitted?  yea  rather,  have  they  not  a  lofty  view  and  a  Christ- 
loving  religiousness  ?     And  yet  these  men  have  written,  "  We 
reject  the  words ;"  while  those  others  they  endure  in  their  insults 
towards  the  Lord,  and  betray  to  all  men,  that  for  no  other  cause 
do  they  resist  that  great  Council  but  that  it  condemned  the 
Arian  heresy.    For  it  is  on  this  account  again  that  they  speak 
against  the  term  One  in  substance,  about  which  they  also  en- 
tertain wrong  sentiments.    For  if  their  faith  was  orthodox,  and 
they  confessed  the  Father  as  truly  Father,  believed  the  Son  to 
be  genuine  Son,  and  by  nature  true  Word  and  Wisdom  of  the 
Father,  and  as  to  saying  that  the  Son  is  from  God,  if  they  did 
not  use  the  words  of  Him  as  of  themselves,  but  understood 
Him  to  be  the  proper  offspring  of  the  Father's  substance,  as 
the  radiance  is  from  light,  they  would  not  every  one  of  them 
have  found  fault  with  the  Fathers;  but  would  have  been  con- 
fident that  the  Council  wrote  suitably ;  and  that  this  is  the 
orthodox  faith  concerning  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

10.  "  But,"  say  they,  "  the  sense  of  such  expressions  is  ob-  §.  40. 

pursuest  syllables  to  the  loss  of  things  ?  for  words  belong  as  much  to  him  who  de- 

For  if  thou  wert  to  say,  '  twice  five,'  or  mands  them  as  to  him  who  utters."  Orat. 

'  twice  seven,'  and  I  concluded  '  ten'  31.  24.  vid.  also  Hil.  contr.  Constant, 

or  '  fourteen'  from  your  words,  or  from  16.  August.  Ep.  238.  n.  4 — 6.   Cyril. 

'  a  reasonable  mortal  animal 'I  concluded  Dial.  i.  p.  391.    Petavius  refers  toother 

'  man,'  should  I  seem  to  you  absurd?  passages,  de  Trin.iv.  5.  §.  6. 
how  so,  if  I  did  but  give  your  meaning  ? 

3  p.  10 
note  g 

138      Pretence  that  the  Nicene  Symbols  are  obscure. 

CouNc.scure  to  us;"  for  this  is  another  of  their  pretences, — "  We 
AND    reject  them1,"  say  they,  "  because  we  cannot  master  their 

SELEU- meaning."     But  if  they  were  true  in  this  profession,  instead 

1  *' 8*  of  saying,  "  We  reject  them,"  they  should  ask  instruction 
from  the  well  informed ;  else  ought  they  to  rej  ect  whatever 
they  cannot  understand  in  divine  Scripture,  and  to  find  fault 
with  the  writers.  But  this  were  the  crime  of  heretics  rather 
than  of  us  Christians  ;  for  what  we  do  not  understand  in  the 
sacred  oracles,  instead  of  rejecting,  we  seek  from  persons  to 
whom  the  Lord  has  revealed  it,  and  from  them  we  ask  for  in- 
struction. But  since  they  thus  make  a  pretence  of  the 
obscurity  of  such  expressions,  let  them  at  least  confess  what 

9p-3i,  is  annexed  to  the  Creed,  and  anathematize  those  who  hold2 
that  "  the  Son  is  from  nothing,"  and  "  He  was  not  before 
His  generation,"  and  "  the  Word  of  God  is  a  creature  and 
work,"  and  "  He  is  alterable  by  nature,"  and  "  from  another 
subsistence ;"  and  in  a  word  let  them  anathematize  the 
Arian  heresy,  which  has  originated  such  irreligion3.  Nor  let 
them  say  any  more,  "  We  reject  the  terms,"  but  that  "  we 
do  not  yet  understand  them ;"  by  way  of  having  some 
reason  to  shew  for  declining  them.  But  well  know  I,  and 
am  sure,  and  they  know  it  too,  that  if  they  could  confess  all 
this  and  anathematize  the  Arian  heresy,  they  would  no 

4  P.  5,  longer  deny  those  terms  of  the  Council4.  For  on  this  account 
eL  it  was  that  the  Fathers,  after  declaring  that  the  Son  was 
begotten  from  the  Father's  substance,  and  One  in  substance 
with  Him,  thereupon  added,  "  But  those  who  say,"  (what  has 
just  been  quoted,  the  symbols  of  the  Arian  heresy,)  "  we 
anathematize  ;"  I  mean,  in  order  to  shew  that  the  statements 
are  parallel,  and  that  the  terms  in  the  Creed  imply  the  dis- 
claimers subjoined,  and  that  all  who  confess  the  terms,  will 
certainly  understand  the  disclaimers.  But  those  who  both 
dissent  from  the  latter  and  impugn  the  former,  such  men  are 
proved  on  every  side  to  be  foes  of  Christ. 

§.  41 .  11.  Those  who  deny  the  Council  altogether,  are  sufficiently 
exposed  by  these  brief  remarks  ;  those,  however,  who  accept 
every  thing  else  that  was  defined  at  Nicsea,  and  quarrel  only 
about  the  One  in  substance,  must  not  be  received  as  enemies; 
nor  do  we  here  attack  them  as  Ario-maniacs,  nor  as  oppo- 
nents of  the  Fathers,  but  we  discuss  the  matter  with  them  as 

Semi- Ar tans  not  to  be  regarded  as  Arians.  139 

brothers  with  brothers1,  who  mean  what  we  mean,  and  dispute  CHAP. 
only  about  the  word.     For,  confessing  that  the  Son  is  from  }-^— 
the  substance  of  the  Father,  and  not  from  other  subsistence  2,  p/ui, 
and  that  He  is  not  creature  nor  work,  but  His  genuine  and  J6.^ 
natural  offspring,  and  that  He  is  eternally  with  the  Father  asp.  66. ' 
being  His  Word  and  Wisdom,  they  are  not  far  from   ac- 
cepting even  the  phrase  "  One  in  substance ;"  of  whom  is  Basil 
of  Ancyra,  in  what  he  has  written  concerning  the  faith".     For 
only  to  say  "  like  according  to  substance,"  is  very  far  from 
signifying  "  of  the  substance3,"  by  which,  rather,  as  they  say3  p.  64, 
themselves,   the    genuineness   of  the  Son   to  the   Father  is 
signified.    Thus  tin  is  only  like  to  silver,  a  wolf  to  a  dog,  and  gilt 
brass  to  the  true  metal ;  but  tin  is  not  from  silver,  nor  could 
a  wolf  be  accounted  the  offspring  of  a  dog1.     But  since  they 
say   that   He   is   "  of  the    substance"  and  "  Like  in   sub- 
stance," what  do  they  signify  by  these  but  "  One  in    sub- 
stance m  ?"     For,   while   to    say   only  "  Like  in  substance," 
does   not   necessarily    convey   "  of  the    substance,"  on   the 
contrary,    to    say   "  One    in    substance,"   is   to    signify    the 
meaning  of  both  terms,  "  Like  in  substance,"  and  "  of  the 
substance."     And  accordingly  they  themselves    in    contro- 
versy with   those   who  say   that   the    Word    is   a   creature, 
instead  of  allowing  Him  to  be  genuine  Son,  have  taken  their 
proofs  against  them   from   human    illustrations  of  son  and 
father",  with  this  exception  that  God  is  not  as  man,  nor  the 

k  Basil,  who  wrote  against  Marcel-  lous  slanders. 

lus,  and  was  placed  by  the  Arians  in  his  J  So  alsodeDecr.  §.23.p.40.  Hyp.  Mel. 
see,  has  little  mention  in  history  till  the  etEuseb.Hil.deSyn.89.vid.p.35,noteu. 
date  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  which  p.  64,  note  i.  The  illustration  runs  into 
deposed  him.  Constantius,  however,  this  position,  "Things  thatare like, can- 
stood  his  friend,  till  the  beginning  of  not  be  the  same."  vid.  p.  136,  note  g.  On 
the  year  360,  when  Acacius  supplanted  the  other  hand,  Athan.  himself  contends 
him  in  the  Imperial  favour,  and  he  was  for  the  ravrbv  T«  auntum,  "  the  same 
banished  into  Illyricum.  This  was  a  in  likeness."  de  Leer.  5.  20.  p.  35.  vid. 
month  or  two  later  than  the  date  at  infr.  note  r. 

which  Athan.  wrote  his  first  draught  m  vid.  Socr.  iii.  25.  p.  204.  a.  b.  Una 

or  edition  of  this  work.     He  was  con-  snbsfantia  religiose prsedicabitur  quse  ex 

demned  upon  charges  of  tyranny,  and  nativitatis  proprlet&te  et  ex  natures  simi- 

the  like,  but  Theodoret  speaks  highly  litudine  ita  indifferens  sit,  ut  una  dica- 

of  his  correctness  of  life  and  Sozomen  tur.  Hil.  de  Syn.  67. 

of   his    learning    and    eloquence,   vid.  m  Here  at  iast  Athan.  alludes  to  the 

Theod.  Hist.  ii.  20.  802.  ii.   33.      A  Ancyrene  Synodal  Letter,  vid.  Epiph. 

very  little  conscientiousness,   or  even  Hser.  73.  5  and  7.  about  which  he  has 

decency  of  manners,  would  put  a  man  in  kept  a  pointed  silence  above,  when  trac- 

strong  relief  with  the  great  Arian  party  ing  the  course  of  the  Arian  confessions, 

which  surrounded  the  Court,  and  a  very  That  is,  he  treats  the  Semi-arians  as 

great  deal  would  not  have  been  enough  tenderly  as  S.  Hilary,  as  soon  as  they 

to  secure  him  against  their  unscrupu-  break  company  with  the  Arians.     The 

Prov.  8, 
John  14, 

§.  10. 
P-  l7- 

140         Tlie  Son  of  God  not  like  a  human  offspring. 

generation  of  the  Son  as  offspring  of  man,  but  as  one  which  may 
be  ascribed  to  God,  and  it  becomes  us  to  think.  Thus  they 
have  called  the  Father  the  Fount  of  Wisdom  and  Life,  and  the 
Son  the  Radiance  of  the  Eternal  Light,  and  the  Offspring  from 
the  Fountain,  as  He  says,  /  am  the  Life,  and  /  Wisdom 
dwell  iL'itli  Prudence.  But  the  Radiance  from  the  Light,  and 
Offspring  from  Fountain,  and  Son  from  Father,  how  can  these 
be  so  suitably  expressed  as  by  "  One  in  substance  ?" 

12.  And  is  there  any  cause  of  fear,  lest,  because  the  offspring 
from  men  are  one  in  substance,  the  Son,  by  being  called  One 
in  substance,  be  Himself  considered  as  a  human  offspring 
too  ?  perish  the  thought  !  not  so  ;  but  the  explanation  is  easy. 
For  the  Son  is  the  Father's  Word  and  Wisdom;  whence  we 
learn  the  impassibility  and  indivisibility1  of  such  a  generation 
^om  t]ie  Father".  For  not  even  man's  word  is  part  of  Him, 
nor  proceeds  from  Him  according  to  passion2;  much  less 
God's  Word  ;  whom  the  Father  has  declared  to  be  His  own 
Son,  lest,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  merely  heard  of  "  Word," 

Ancyrene  Council  of  358  was  a  protest 
against  the  "  blasphemia"  or  second 
Sirmian  Confession,  which.  Hosius 

B  It  is  usual  with  the  Fathers  to  use 
the  two  terms  "  Son"  and  "  Word"  to 
guard  and  complete  the  ordinary  sense 
of  each  other.  Their  doctrine  is  that 
our  Lord  is  both,  in  a  certain  transcend- 
ent, prototypical,  and  singular  sense ; 
that  in  that  high  sense  that  are  coinci- 
dent with  one  another;  that  they  are  ap- 
plied to  human  things  by  an  accommoda- 
tion, as  far  as  these  are  shadows  of  Him 
to  whom  properly  they  really  belong ; 
that  being  but  partially  realized  on  earth, 
the  ideas  gained  from  the  earthly  types 
are  but  imperfect ;  that  in  consequence 
if  any  one  of  them  is  used  exclusively  of 
Him,  it  tends  to  introduce  wrong  ideas 
respecting  Him  ;  but  that  their  re- 
spective imperfections  lying  on  different 
sides,  when  used  together  they  correct 
each  other,  vid.  p.  18,  note  o.  and  p.  43, 
note  d.  The  term  Son,  used  by  it- 
self, was  abused  into  Arianism  ;  and 
the  term  Word  into  Sabellianism ;  again 
the  term  Son  might  be  accused  of  in- 
troducing material  notions,  and  the  term 
Word  of  imperfection  and  transitori- 
ness.  Each  of  them  corrected  the  other. 
"  Scripture,  "  says  Athan.  "  joining 
the  two,  has  said  '  Son,'  that  the  natural 
and  true  offspring  of  the  substance  may 

be  preached  ;  but  that  no  one  may  un- 
derstand a  human  offspring,  signifying 
His  substance  a  second  time,  it  calls 
Him  Word,  and  Wisdom,  and  Ra- 
diance." Orat.  i.  §.  28.  vid.  p.  20,  note  t. 
vid.  also  iv.  §.  8.  Euseb.  contr.  Marc, 
ii.  4.  p.  54.  Isid.  Pel.  Ep.  iv.  141. 
So  S.  Cyril  says  that  we  learn  "  from 
His  being  called  Son  that  He  is  from 
Him,  rt  \\  aurav;  from  His  being  called 
Wisdom  and  Word,  that  He  is  in  Him," 
TO  iv  KVTM.  Thesaur.  iv.  p.  31.  How- 
ever, S.  Athanasius  observes,  that  pro- 
perly speaking  the  one  term  implies  the 
other,  i.  e.  in  its  fulness.  "  Since  the 
Son's  being  is  from  the  Father,  there- 
fore He  is  in  the  Father."  Orat.  iii. 
§.  3.  "  If  not  Son,  not  Word  either  ; 
and  if  not  Word,  not  Son.  For  what  is 
from  the  Father  is  Son ;  and  what  is 
from  the  Father,  but  the  Word,  &c." 
Orat.  iv.  §.  24.  fin.  On  the  other  hand 
the  heretics  accused  Catholics  of  in- 
consistency, or  of  a  union  of  opposite 
errors,  because  they  accepted  all  the 
Scripture  images  together.  But  Vi- 
gilius  of  Thapsus  says,  that  "  error 
bears  testimony  to  truth,  and  the  dis- 
cordant opinions  of  misbelievers  blend 
in  concordance  in  the  rule  of  ortho- 
doxy." contr.  Eutych.  ii.  init.  Grande 
miraculum,  ut  expugnatione  sui  veritas 
confirmetur.  ibid.  circ.  init.  vid.  also  i. 
init.  and  Eulogius,  ap.  Phot.  225.  p.  759. 

Inconsistent  to  admit  "of  the"  not  "one  in  Substance.'"    141 

we  should  suppose  Him,  such  as  is  the  word  of  man,  unsub-  CHAP. 
sistent l ;  but  that,  hearing  that  He  is  Son,  we  may  acknow-  — ^V 
ledge  Him  to  be  a  living  Word  and  a  substantive2  Wisdom. ,*™*o*' 
Accordingly,  as  in  saying  "offspring,"  we  have  no  human  I*""'™" 
thoughts,  and,  though  we   know  God   to   be  a  Father,  we^'  ' 
entertain  no  material  ideas  concerning  Him,  but  while  we 
listen  to  these  illustrations  and  terms3,  we  think  suitably  of3  p.  153, 
God,  for  He  is  not  as  man,  so  in  like  manner,  when  we  hear"0 
of  "  one  in  substance,"  we  ought  to  transcend  all  sense,  and, 
according  to  the  Proverb,  understand  ly  the  understanding  Prov. 
that  is  set  before  us;  so  as  to  know,  that  not  by  will,  but  in23'  l' 
truth,  is  He  genuine  from  the  Father,  as  Life  from  Fountain, 
and  Radiance  from  Light.     Else4  why  should  we  understand4  vid. 
"  offspring"  and  "  son,"  in  no  corporeal  way,  while  we  conceive  H^. ' 
of  "  one  in  substance"  as  after  the  manner  of  bodies  ?  espe- 73-  3- 


cially  since  these  terms  are  not  here  used  about  different 
subjects,  but  of  whom  "  offspring"  is  predicated,  of  Him  is 
"  one  in  substance"  also.  And  it  is  but  consistent  to  attach 
the  same  sense  to  both  expressions  as  applied  to  the  Saviour, 
and  not  to  interpret  "  offspring,"  as  is  fitting,  and  "  one  in 
substance"  otherwise ;  since  to  be  consistent,  ye  who  are  thus 
minded  and  who  say  that  the  Son  is  Word  and  Wisdom  of 
the  Father,  should  entertain  a  different  view  of  these  terms 
also,  and  understand  in  separate  senses  Word,  and  in  dis- 
tinct senses  Wisdom.  But,  as  this  would  be  extravagant, 
(for  the  Son  is  the  Father's  Word  and  Wisdom,  and  the 
Offspring  from  the  Father  is  one  and  proper  to  His  substance,) 
so  the  sense  of  "  offspring"  and  "  one  in  substance"  is  one, 
and  whoso  considers  the  Son  an  offspring,  rightly  considers 
Him  also  as  "  one  in  substance." 

13.  This  is  sufficient  to  shew  that  the  phrase  of  "  one  in  §.  43. 
substance"  is  not  foreign  nor  far  from  the  meaning  of  these 
much  loved  persons5.     But  since,  as  they  allege6,  (for  I  have 5  p.  157, 
not  the  Epistle  in  question,)  the  Bishops  who  condemned  e  rid.*' 
Samosatene0  have  laid  down  in  writing  that  the  Son  is  not  Hilar. 
one  in  substance  with  the  Father,  and  so  it  comes  to  pass  that  si  init. 


0  There    were   three   Councils   held     text,  which  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  12. 
against  Paul  of  Samosata,  of  the  dates     Pagi,    S.    Basnage,     and     Tillemont, 
of    264,    269,    and    an    intermediate     Pearson  fixes  at  265  or  266. 
year.     The  third  is  spoken  of  in  the 

142  Dionysius  u^ed  "  One  in  Substance"  if  not  Anliochenes. 

COUNC.  they,  for  reverence  and  honour  towards  the  aforesaid,  thus  feel 
^NiT'  about  that  expression,  it  will  be  to  the  purpose  reverently  to 
SELEU.  argue  with  them  this  point  also.  Certainly  it  is  unbecoming  to 
make  the  one  company  conflict  with  the  other ;  for  all  are 
fathers ;  nor  is  it  religious  to  settle,  that  these  have  spoken 
well,  and  those  ill ;  for  all  of  them  have  gone  to  sleep  in 
Christ.  Nor  is  it  right  to  be  disputatious,  and  to  compare 
the  respective  numbers  of  those  who  met  in  the  Councils,  or 
the  three  hundred  may  seem  to  throw  the  lesser  into  the 
shade ;  nor  to  compare  the  dates,  lest  those  who  preceded 
seem  to  eclipse  those  that  came  after.  For  all,  I  say,  are 
Fathers ;  and,  any  how  the  three  hundred  laid  down  nothing 
new,  nor  was  it  in  any  self-confidence  that  they  became 
champions  of  words  not  in  Scripture,  but  they  started  from 
their  Fathers,  as  the  others,  and  they  used  their  words.  For 
there  were  two  Bishops  of  the  name  of  Dionysius,  much 
older  than  the  seventy  who  deposed  Samosatene,  of  whom 
one  was  of  Rome,  and  the  other  of  Alexandria;  and  a 
charge  had  been  laid  by  some  persons  against  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  before  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  if  he  had  said 
that  the  Son  was  made,  and  not  one  in  substance  with  the 
Father.  This  had  given  great  pain  to  the  Roman  Council ; 
and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  expressed  their  united  sentiments 
in  a  letter  to  his  namesake.  This  led  to  his  writing  an  ex- 
planation which  he  calls  the  Book  of  Refutation  and  Apology; 
and  it  runs  thus  : 

§.  44.        14.  And '  I  have  written  in  another  Letter,  a  refutation  of  the  false 

1  vid.      charge  which  they  bring  against  me,  that  1  deny  that  Christ  is  one 
?e2^ecr'  in  substance  with  God.     For  though  I  say  that  I  have  not  found 
p.  44.     or  yeac*  t^1^s  term  anv  where  in  holy  Scripture,  yet  my  remarks'2 

2  l*t%ti-  which  follow,  and  which  they  have  not  noticed,  are  not  incon- 

sistent  with  that  belief.  For  I  instanced  a  human  production, 
which  is  evidently  homogeneous,  and  I  observed  that  undeniably 
fathers  differred  from  their  children,  only  in  not  being  the  same 
individuals ;  otherwise  there  could  be  neither  parents  nor  children. 
And  my  Letter,  as  I  said  before,  owing  to  present  circumstances, 
I  am  unable  to  produce,  or  I  would  have  sent  you  the  very 
words  I  used,  or  rather  a  copy  of  it  all ;  which,  if  I  have  an  op- 
portunity, I  will  do  still.  But  I  am  sure  from  recollection,  that 
I  adduced  many  parallels  of  things  kindred  with  each  other,  for 
instance,  that  a  plant  grown  from  seed  or  from  root,  was  other 
than  that  from  which  it  sprang,  and  yet  altogether  one  in  nature 
with  it ;  and  that  a  stream  flowing  from  a  fountain,  changed  its 

Apparent  contradictions  in  Scripture.  143 

appearance  and  its  name,  for  that  neither  the  fountain  was  called  CHAP. 
stream,  nor  the  stream  fountain,  but  both  existed,  and  that  the    HI. 
fountain  was  as  it  were  father,  but  the  stream  was  what  was 
generated  from  the  fountain. 

15.  Thus  the  Bishop.     If  then  any  one  finds  fault  with  the  §.  45. 
Fathers  at  Nicaea,  as  if  they  contradicted  the  decisions  of 
their  predecessors,  he  may  reasonably  find  fault  also  with  the 
Seventy,  because  they  did  not  keep  to  the  statements  of  their 
own   predecessors;    for   such    were   the   two  Dionysii   and 
the  Bishops   assembled   on   that   occasion   at   Rome.     But 
neither  these  nor  those  is  it  religious  to  blame ;  for  all  were 
legates  of  the  things  of  Christ,  and  all  gave  diligence  against 
the  heretics,  and  while  the  one  party  condemned  Samosatene, 
the  other  condemned  the  Arian  heresy.    And  rightly  did  both 
these  and  those  define,  and  suitably  to  the  matter  in  hand.   And 
as  the  blessed  Apostle,  writing  to  the  Romans,  said,  Tlie  Law  Rom.  7, 
is  spiritual,  the  Law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment  holy  and14' 12' 
just  and  good;  (and  soon  after,  What  the  Law  could  not  do,  Rom.  8, 
in  that  it  was  weak,)  but  wrote  to  the  Hebrews,  The  Law  ^eb  7 
wade  no  one  perfect ;  and  to  the  Galatians,  By  the  Law  no  ii>- 
one  is  justified,  but  to  Timothy,  Tlie  Law  is  good,  if  a  man  \\t ' 
use  it   laufidly ;    and  no  one   would  accuse  the   Saint  of*Tim<1> 
inconsistency   and   variation   in   writing,   but   rather   would 
admire  how  suitably  he  wrote  to  each,  to  teach  the  Romans 
and  the  others  to  turn  from  the  letter  to  the  spirit,  but  to 
instruct  the  Hebrews  and  Galatians  to  place  their  hopes,  not 
in  the  Law,  but  in  the  Lord  who  gave  the  Law ; — so,  if  the 
Fathers  of  the  two  Councils  made  different  mention  of  the 
One  in  substance,  we  ought  not  in  any  respect  to  differ  from 
them,  but  to  investigate  then-  meaning,  and  this  will  fully 
shew  us  the  meaning  of  both  the  Councils.     For  they  who 
deposed   Samosatene,  took  One   in    substance  in   a   bodily 
sense,  because  Paul  had  attempted  sophistry  and  said,  "  Unless 
Christ  has  of  man  become  God,  it  follows  that  He  is  One  in 
substance  with  the  Father ;  and  if  so,  of  necessity  there  are 
three  substances,  one  the  previous  substance,  and  the  other  two 
from  it ;"  and  therefore  guarding  against  this  they  said  with  good 
reason,  that  Christ  was  not  One  in  substance?.     For  the  Son 

P  This  is  in  fact  the  objection  which    stance,  supr.  §.  16.  when  he  calls  it  the 
Arius  urges   against  the  One  in  sub-    doctrine  of  Manicheeus  and  Hieracas, 

144  Why  the  Council  o/Antioch  declined  "One  in  Substance." 

COUNC.  is  not  related  to  the  Father  as  he  imagined.     But  the  Bishops 

A™*'  who  anathematized  the  Arian  heresy,  understanding  Paul's 

SELEU.  craft,  and  reflecting  that  the  word  "  One  in  substance,"  has  not 

this  meaning  when  used  of  things  immaterial q,  and  especially 

of  God,  and  acknowledging  that  the  Word  was  not  a  creature, 

but  an  offspring  from  the  substance,  and  that  the  Father's 

substance  was  the  origin  and  root  and  fountain  of  the  Son, 

•  aw*-  and  that  He  was  of  very  truth1  His  Father's  likeness,  and  not 

*"*'**      of  different  nature,  as  we  are,  and  separate  from  the  Father, 

but  that,  as  being  from  Him,  He  exists  as  Son  indivisible, 

as  radiance  is  with  respect  of  Light,  and  knowing  too  the 

illustrations  used  in  Dionyius's  case,  the  "  fountain,"  and  the 

defence  of  "  One  in  substance,"  and  before  this  the  Saviour's 

Mvrf  saying,  symbolical  of  unity2,  /  and  the  Father  are  one,  and 

re/ ;8'   he  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father,  on  these  grounds 

Johnio,  reasonably  asserted  on   their   part,  that   the    Son  was  One 

Johni4,m  substance.      And  as,  according  to   a  former  remark,  no 

9-          one  would  blame  the  Apostle,  if  he  wrote  to  the  Romans 

about  the  Law  in  one  way,  and  to  the  Hebrews  in  another ; 

in  like  manner,  neither  would  the  present  Bishops  find  fault 

with   the    ancient,   in    regard    to   their    interpretation,   nor 

again  on   the  view   of  theirs  and  of  the  need  of  their  so 

writing  about  the   Lord,  would   the   ancient    censure   the 


vid.  p.  97,  note  1.  The  same  objection  that  the  Son  was  a  distinct  being  from 
is  protested  against  by  S.  Basil,  contr.  the  Father,  and  appealing  to  (what 
Eunom.  i.  19.  Hilar.  de  Trin.  iv.  4.  might  be  plausibly  maintained)  that 
Yet,  while  S.  Basil  agrees  with  Athan.  spirits  are  incommeasurable  with  one 
in  his  account  of  the  reason  of  the  another,  or  that  each  is  sui  simile,  con- 
Council's  rejection  of  the  word,  S.  eluded  that  "  like  in  substance"  was 
Hilary  on  the  contrary  reports  that  Paul  the  only  term  which  would  express  the 
himself  accepted  it,  i.  e.  in  a  Sabellian  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  Here 
sense,  and  therefore  the  Council  rejected  then  the  word  "  one  in  substance"  did 
it.  "  Male  homousion  Samosatenus  con-  just  enable  the  Catholics  to  join  issue 
fessus  est,  sed  numquid  melius  Arii  ne-  with  them,  as  exactly  expressing  what 
gaverunt."  de  Syn.  86.  the  Catholics  wished  to  express,  viz.  that 
1  The  Eusebians  tried  to  establish  a  there  was  no  such  distinction  between 
distinction  between  opoovcrtov  and  Ipoi-  Them  as  made  the  term  "  like"  neces- 
ovo-iev,  "  one  in  substance"  and  '•  like  sary,  but  that  Their  relation  to  Each 
in  substance,"  of  this  sort;  that  the  Other  was  analogous  to  that  of  a  material 
former  belonged  to  things  material,  and  offspring  to  a  material  parent,  or  that 
the  latter  to  immaterial,  Soz.  iii.  18.  a  as  material  parent  and  offspring  are 
remark  which  in  itself  was  quite  suf-  individuals  under  one  common  species, 
ficient  to  justify  the  Catholics  in  insist-  so  the  Eternal  Father  and  Son  are 
ing  on  the  former  term.  For  the  heretical  Persons  under  one  common  individual 
party,  starting  with  the  notion  in  which  substance. 
their  heresy  in  all  its  shades  consisted, 

Each  Council  acted  with  a  reason.  145 

16.  Yes  surely,  each  Council  had  a  sufficient  reason  for  its  CHAP. 
own  language ;  for  since  Samosatene  held  that  the  Son  was  — 
not  before  Mary,  but  received  from  her  the  origin  of  His 
being,  therefore   the   assembled  Fathers  deposed   him   and 
pronounced  him  heretic ;  but  concerning  the  Son's  Godhead 
writing  in  simplicity,  they  arrived  not  at  accuracy  concerning 
the  One  in  substance, but,  as  they  understood  the  word,  so  spoke 
they  about  it.     For  they  directed  all  their  thoughts  to  destroy 
the  device  of  Samosatene,  and  to  shew  that  the   Son  was 
before  all  things,  and  that,  instead  of  becoming  God  from  man, 
God  had  put  on  a  servant's  form,  and  the  Word  had  become 
flesh,   as   John   says.       This   is    how   they    dealt   with    the 
blasphemies  of  Paul;    but  when  the  party  of  Eusebius  and 
Arius  said  that  though  the   Son  was  before  time,  yet  was 
He  made  and   one  of  the  creatures,  and  as  to  the  phrase 
"  from  God,"  they  did  not  believe  it  in  the  sense  of  His  being 
genuine  Son  from  Father,  but  maintained  it  as  it  is  said  of 
the  creatures,  and  as  to  the  oneness1"  of  likeness1  between  the  '  vid. 
Son  and  the  Father,  did  not  confess  that  the  Son  is  like  the  H*r.73. 
Father  according  to  substance,  or  according  to  nature,  but9fin> 
because  of  Their  agreement  of  doctrines  and  of  teaching2;2  P- 107} 
nay,  when  they  drew  a  line  and  an  utter  distinction  between 
the  Son's  substance  and  the  Father,  ascribing  to   Him  an 
origin  of  being,  other  than  the  Father,  and  degrading  Him  to 
the   creatures,  on  this   account   the   Bishops   assembled  at 
Nicaea,  with  a  view  to  the  craft  of  the  parties  so  thinking, 
and  as  bringing   together    the  sense    from    the    Scriptures, 
cleared  up  the  point,  by  affirming  the  "  One  in  substance ;" 
that  both  the  true  genuineness  of  the  Son  might  thereby  be 
known,  and  that  things  generated  might  be  ascribed  nothing  in 

6[*.oiu<rtca;   Ivarjjra.   and  so  the  Son."  iii.  §.  5.  tin.     The  Father's 

iuffti  de  Deer.  §.  20.  p.  35.  godhead  is  the  Son's.  <r£  <rar^/*ov  Qus  o 

»J?  Qvcrteas  xcti  <rtjv  rtx,u<TOTr>rtx,  viaf.  iii.  §.  53.  piav  rw  Siorwra,  x<xi  vo'l^iav 

vov  ip<yro?.ib5d.$.24.p.41  init.  also§.  23.  T^S  curias  rou  fctrgo's.  §.  56.     "As  the 

And  Basil.  rxi/Tortira,  <rns  Qvtrius.  Ep.8.  water  is  the  same  which  i<  poured  from 

3.  raurortiTa  r%s  evtrids.  Cyril  in  Joan,  fountain  into  stream,  so  the  godhead  of 

v.  p.  302.     Hence  it  is  uniformly  as-  the  Father  into  the  Son  is  intransitive 

serted  by  the  Catholics  that  the  Father's  and  indivisible,  ufpivyruf  xa.}  &$/a<gir«f. 

godhead,  horns,  is  the  Son's ;  e.  g.  "  the  Expos.  §.  2.  vid.  p.  155,  note  f.     This 

Father's  godhead  being  in  the   Son,"  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Una  Res,  which, 

infr.  §.  52.  *  vru.<r£ix,v  q>v<rts  alrev.  Orat.  being  not  defined  in  General   Council 

i.  §.  40.  "  worshipped  xetra.  <rnv  fa-v^i-  till    the    fourth    Lateran,    many    most 

KM  ttitdrijTet.  §.  42.  trurgtxtiv  avrov  6to-  injuriously  accuse  the  Greek  Fathers, 

rtirot.  §.  45  fin.  §.  49  fin.  ii.  §.  18.  $.  73  as  the  two  Gregories,  of  denying.    That 

fin.  iii.  §.  26.  "  the  Father's  godhead  Council  is  not  here  referred  to  as  of 

and  propriety  is  the  being,  rb  tt»«i,  of  authority. 

146  As  "One  in  Substance"  so  "Ingenerate"  variously  used. 

COUNC.  common  with  Him.  For  the  precision  of  this  phrase  detects 
AAND  '  tneir  pretence,  whenever  they  use  the  phrase  "  from  God,"  and 
SELEU.  gets  ncl  of  all  the  subtleties  with  which  they  seduce  the  simple. 
For  whereas  they  contrive  to  put  a  sophistical  construction  on 
all  other  words  at  their  will,  this  phrase  only,  as  detecting 
their  heresy,  do  they  dread;  which  the  Fathers  did  set  down  as 
a  bulwark8  against  their  irreligious  speculations,  one  and  al]. 
§.46.  17.  Cease  we  then  all  contention,  nor  any  longer  conflict  we 
with  each  other,  though  the  Councils  have  differently  taken  the 
phrase  "  One  in  substance,"  for  we  have  already  assigned  a 
sufficient  defence  of  them  ;  and  to  it  the  following  may  be 
added  :  —  We  have  not  derived  the  word  "  Ingenerate"  from 
Scripture,  (for  no  where  does  Scripture  call  God  Ingenerate,) 
yet  since  it  has  many  authorities  in  its  favour,  I  was  curious 
1  p-  62,  about  the  term,  and  found  that  it  too  has  different  senses1. 
Some,  for  instance,  call  what  is,  but  is  neither  generated,  nor 
3  p.  52,  has  any  cause  at  all,  ingenerate;  and  others,  the  increate2. 
As  then  a  person,  having  in  his  mind  the  former  of  these 
senses,  viz.  "  that  which  has  no  cause,"  might  say  that  the  Son 
was  not  ingenerate,  yet  would  not  be  blaming  any  one  he 
perceived  looking  to  the  other  meaning,  "not  a  work  or  crea- 
ture but  an  eternal  offspring,"  and  affirming  accordingly  that 
the  Son  was  ingenerate,  (for  both  speak  suitably  with  a  view 
to  their  own  object,)  so,  even  granting  that  the  Fathers  have 
spoken  variously  concerning  the  One  in  substance,  let  us  not 
dispute  about  it,  but  take  what  they  deliver  to  us  in  a  re- 
ligious way,  when  especially  their  anxiety  was  directed  in 
behalf  of  religion. 

§.  47.      18.  Ignatius,  for  instance,  who  was  appointed  Bishop  in 
Antioch  after  the  Apostles,  and  became  a  martyr  of  Christ, 
writes  concerning  the  Lord  thus  :  "  There  is  one  physician, 
fleshly  and  spiritual,  generate  and  ingenerate,  God  in  man, 
J  vid.      true  life  in  death,  both  from  Mary  and  from  God  3  ;"  whereas 
E^ph.*.  some  teachers  who   followed   Ignatius,  write  in  their  turn, 

fut  ;  in  like  manner  ffuvturpov  the  c  One  in  substance.'  "  Heer.  69.  70. 

s.  Epiph.  Ancor.  6.  "  Without  the  "  That  term  did  the  Fathers  set  down 

confession  of  the  One  in  '  substance,'  "  in  their  formula  of  faith,  which  they 

says  Epiphanius,  "  no  heresy  can  be  re-  perceived   to  be   a  source  of  dread  to 

futed  ;  for  as  a  serpent  hates  the  smell  of  their  adversaries  ;  that  they  themselves 

bitumen,  and  the  scent  of  sesame-cake,  might  unsheath  the  sword   whtch  cut 

and  the  burning  of  agate,  and  the  smoke  off  the  head  of  their  own   monstrous 

of  storax,  so  do  Arius  and  Sabellius  hate  heresy."  Ambros.  de  Fid.  iii.  15. 
the  notion  of  the  sincere  profession  of 

We  ouyht  toentcr  into  the  Fathers'  meaning  ^not  carpal  if.  147 

"  One  is  the  Ingenerate,  the  Father,  and  one  the  genuine 

Son  from   Him,  true    offspring,  Word  and  Wisdom   of  the '— 

Father1."  If  therefore  we  have  hostile  feelings  towards  these 
writers,  then  have  we  right  to  quarrel  with  the  Councils ;  but 
if,  knowing  their  faith  in  Christ,  we  are  persuaded  that  the 
blessed  Ignatius  was  orthodox  in  writing  that  Christ  was 
generate  on  account  of  the  flesh,  (for  He  was  made  flesh,)  yet 
ingenerate,  because  He  is  not  in  the  number  of  things  made 
and  generated,  but  Son  from  Father,  and  are  aware  too  that  the 
parties  who  have  said  that  the  Ingenerate  is  One,  meaning 
the  Father,  did  not  mean  to  lay  down  that  the  Word  was 
generated  and  made,  but  that  the  Father  has  no  cause,  but 
rather  is  Himself  Father  of  Wisdom,  and  in  Wisdom  hath 
made  all  things  that  are  generated,  why  do  we  not  combine  all 
our  Fathers  in  religious  belief,  those  who  deposed  Samosatene 
as  well  as  those  who  proscribed  the  Arian  heresy,  instead  of 
making  distinctions  between  them  and  refusing  to  entertain  a 
right  opinion  of  them  ?  I  repeat,  that  these,  looking  towards 
the  sophistical  explanation  of  Samosatene,  wrote,  "  He  is  not 
one  in  substance";"  and  those  with  an  apposite  meaning,  said 
that  He  was.  For  myself,  1  have  written  these  brief  remarks, 
from  my  feeling  towards  persons  who  were  religious  to 
Christ-ward;  but  were  it  possible  to  come  by  the  Epistle 
which  we  are  told  that  they  wrote,  I  consider  we  should 
find  further  grounds  for  the  aforesaid  proceeding  of  these 
blessed  men.  For  it  is  right  and  meet  thus  to  feel,  and 
to  maintain  a  good  understanding  with  the  Fathers,  if  we 
be  not  spurious  children,  but  have  received  the  traditions 
from  them,  and  the  lessons  of  religion  at  their  hands. 

19.  Such  then,  as  we  confess  and  believe,  being  the  sense  of§.  48. 
the  Fathers,  proceed  we  even  in  their  company  to  examine  once 

t  The   writer   is  not  known.     The  sion  in  this  volume.    The  lamented  Dr. 

President  of  Magdalen  has  pointed  out  Burton,  in  Mr.  Faber's  Apostolicity  of 

to  the  Editor  the  following  similar  pas-  Trinitarianism,  vol.  2.  p.  302.  is  the 

sage  in  St.  Clement.  1*  (*\v  <rb  ay'innron,  last  writer  who  has  denied  the  rejection 

o  *cttroxga,T<u£  fibs,  iv  11  xctl  ri  vr^eyiwn-  of  the  symbol;  but,  (as  appears  to  the 

fa  2/'   ou   TO.  vavret    iyivtro,  xai  %*>£{  present  writer,)  not  on  sufficient  grounds. 

tiurov  tyivire  ofit  iv.  Strom,  vi.  7.  p.  769.  Eeference  is  made  to  a  Creed  or  Ecthe- 

11  There  is  much  to  say  on  the  sub-  sis,  found  among  the  acts  of  Ephesus, 

ject  of  the  rejection  of  the  opaova-ttv  at  and  said  to  have  been  published  against 

this  Council  of  Antioch;  but  it  branches  Paul;  and  on  this  some  remarks  are 

into  topics  too  far  from  the  text  of  A  tha-  made  in  Note  p.  165. 
nasius  to  allow  of  its  satisfactory  discus- 

L  2 

148     "  Of  the  Substance"  implies  "  One  in  Substance" 

COUNC.  more  the  matter,  calmly  and  with  a  good  understanding,  with 
A™™  reference  to  what  has  been  said  before,  viz.  whether  the  Bishops 
SELEU.  collected  at  Nicaea  did  not  really  exercise  an  excellent  judg- 
ment.   For  if  the  Word  be  a  work  and  foreign  to  the  Father's 
substance,  so  that  He  is  separated  from  the  Father  by  the 
difference  of  nature,  He  cannot  be  one  in  substance  with 
Him,  but   rather   He  is  homogeneous   by  nature  with  the 

1  supr.    works,  though  He  surpass  them  in  grace1.    On  the  other  hand, 

if  we  confess  that  He  is  not  a  work  but  the  genuine  offspring 
of  the  Father's  substance,  it  would  follow  that  He  is  inse- 

2  tpotprf  parable  from  the  Father,  being  connatural 2,  because  He  is 

begotten   from    Him.      And   being   such,  good  reason    He 
should  be  called  One  in  Substance.     Next,  if  the  Son  be  not 
*furto-  such  from  participation3,  but  is  in  His  substance  the  Father's 
Word  and  Wisdom,  and  this  substance  is  the  offspring  of 
4  p- 155,  the  Father's  substance  4,  and  its  likeness  as  the  radiance  is  of 
John  10, the  light,  and  the  Son  says,  /  and  the  Father  are  One,  and  he 
j°'        that  hath  seen  Me,  hath   seen   the  Father,  how  must  we 
9.        'understand  these  words ?  or  how  shall  we  so  explain  them  as 
to  preserve  the  oneness  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  ?     Now  as 
•>  ft*?-     to  its  consisting  in  agreement5  of  doctrines,  and  in  the  Son's  not 
I07,note  disagreeing  with  the  Father,  as  the  Arians  say,  such  an  inter- 
£  yet     pretation  will  not  stand ;  for  both  the  Saints  and  still  more 
Hipp.     Angels  and  Archangels  have  such  an  agreement  with  God, 
™*fr.  ^  anci  t}iere  is  no  disagreement  among  them.     For  he  who  was 
in   disagreement,    the   devil,   was   beheld   to   fall   from    the 
heavens,  as  the  Lord  said.     Therefore  if  by  reason  of  agree- 
ment the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one,  there  would  be  things 
generate  which  had  this  agreement  with  God,  and  each  of 
these  might  say,  /  and  the  Father  are  One.     But  if  this  be 
shocking,  and  so  it  truly  is,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  we 
*xn4m  must  conceive  of  Son's  and  Father's  oneness  in  the  way  of 
Cyril.     ^stance.    For  things  generated,  though  they  have  an  agree- 

Jufviii  ment  ^^  ^ieil  Mater'  yet  Possess  it  only  by  influence6,  and 
p.  274!'hy  participation,  and  through  the  mind;  the  transgression 
Nyw'  °f  whicl1  forfeits  heaven.  But  the  Son,  being  an  offspring 
de Horn,  from  the  substance,  is  one  in  substance,  Himself  and  the 
' Father  that  begat  Him- 

20-  This  is  why  He  has  equality  with  the  Father  by  titlevS 
exPressive  of  unity7,  and  what  is  said  of  the  Father,  is  said  in 

Tfie  Son  has  all  things  of  the  Father,  but  being  the  Father.    1  49 

Scripture  of  the  Son  also,  all  but  His  being  called  Father  x.  CHAP. 
For  the  Son  Himself  says,  All  things  that  the  Father  hath     IIL 

are  Mine  ;  and  He  says  to  the  Father,  All  Mine  are  Thine,  John 
and  Thine  are  Mine;  —  as  for  instance1,  the  name  God;  for  j^'hn6* 
the  Word  was  God;  —  Almighty,  Thus  saith  He  that  is,  and  17,  10. 
that  was,  and  that  is  to  come,  the  Almighty;  —  the  being  oVat  'iii 
Light,  I  am,  He  says,  the  Light;  —  the  Operative  Cause,  All*-4- 
things  were  made  by  Him,  and  whatsoever  I  see  the  Father  i,  i. 
do,  I  do  also;  —  the  being  Everlasting,  His  eternal  power  and^°c- 
godhead,  and  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  He  was  John 
the  true  Light,  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  j'0hn" 
the  world  ;  —  the  being  Lord,  for  The  Lord  rained  fire  andl>Sm 
brimstone  from   the   Lord,  and  the  Father  says,  /  am  the  5,  19. 
Lord,  and  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  Almighty  God;  and  off°2™' 
the  Son  Paul  speaks  thus,  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  Jonn 
whom   all   things.     And  on   the  Father  Angels   serve,   andj'0hn 
again  the  Son  too  is  worshipped  by  them,  And  let  all  the1*9* 
Angels  of  God  worship  Him  ;  and  He  is  said  to  be  Lord  of  19,  24. 
Angels,  for  the  Angels  ministered  unto  Him,  and  the  Son  0/gSa>  45> 
Man  shall  send  His  Angels.     The  being  honoured  as  the  i  Cor. 
Father,  for  that  they  may  honour  the  Son,  He  says,  as  they  T'he*b 
honour  the  Father  ;  —  being  equal  to  God,  He  thought  it  not1-*  6* 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God;  —  the  being  Truth  from  the  True,  4  \\\ 
and  Life  from  the  Living,  as  being  truly  from  the  Fountain  of  Ma*t- 
the   Father;  —  the  quickening  and   raising  the  dead  as  the  John 
Father,  for  so  we  read  in  the  Gospel.     And  of  the  Father  itp^f' 
is  written,  The  Lord  thy  God  is  One  Lord,  and  The  God  0/2,  e." 
gods  the  Lord  hath  spoken,  and  hath  called  the  earth;  andg6^' 
of  the  Son,  The  Lord  God  hath  sinned  upon  us,  and  The  GodPs-^,i. 

Ps.  118 

of  Gods  shall  be  seen  in  Sion.     And  again  of  God,  Esaias27. 
says,  Who  is  a  God  like  unto  Thee,  taking  away  iniquities?*1*** 

x  By  "the   Sen  being  equal  to  the  Father,  «/«&>»  Quotw  xxi  a 

Father,"  is  but  meant  that  He  is  His  x.a.ra.  T«vra  oftoia  *u  -mr^i,    irXvv  T?J 

"  unvarying  image  ;"  it  does  not  imply  afyivina-ixf  xa.}  T»J>  far^ortiros.  Uamasc. 

any  distinction  of  substance.     (l  Per-  de  Imag.  iii.  18.  p.  354.  vid.  also  Basil. 

fectsb  sequalitatis  signiticantiam  habet  contr.  Eun.  ii.  28.   Theod.     Inconfus. 

similitude."  Hil.  de  Syn.  73.  But  though  p.  91.  Basil.  Ep.  38.  7  fin.    For  the 

He  is  in  all  things  His  Image,  this  Son  is  the  Image  of  the  Father,  not 

implies   some  exception,  for   else   He  as  Father,  but  as   God.     The   Arians 

would  not  be   like   or  equal,  but  the  on     the    other    hand,    objecting     the 

same.    "  Non  est  sequalitas  in  dissimi-  phrase  "unvarying  image,"  asked  why 

libus,  nee  similitude  est  intra  unum."  the    Son    was   not  in   consequence    a 

ibid.   72.     Hence  He  is  the  Father's  Father,  and  the  beginning  of  a  tuyiv'm. 

image  in  all  things  except  in  being  the  Athan.  Orat.  i.  21.  vid,  infra,  note  z. 

150   The  Son  is  One  with  the  Father,  because  equal  to  Him. 

passing  over  unrighteousness?  but  the  Son  said  to 
ARIM.  w]lom  jje  would,  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  Thee;  for  instance, 
SEI.EU.  when,  on  the  Jews  murmuring,  He  manifested  the  remission 

Matt,     by   His   act?    saying   to    the   paralytic,  Rise,   take   up    thy 

Mark     bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house.     And  of  God  Paul  says,  To  the 

l*Tim    King  eternal;    and  again  of  the  Son,  David  in  the  Psalm, 

i,  17.^  Lift  up  your  heads,  O  ye  gates,  and  be  ye  lift  up  ye  ever- 

"•24''' lasting  doors,  and  the  King  of  glory  shall  come  in.     And 

Dan.      Daniel  heard  it  said,  His  Kingdom  is  an  everlasting  King- 

Dan       dom,  and  His  Kingdom  shall  not   be   destroyed.     And   in 

7, 14.     a  word,  all  that  you  find  said  of  the  Father,  so  much  will 

you  find  said  of  the  Son,  all  but  His  being  Father,  as  has 

been  said. 

§.  50.      24.  If  then  any  think  of  other  origin,  and  other  Father,  con- 
sidering the  equality  of  these  attributes,  it  is  a  mad  thought. 
But  if,  since  the  Son  is  from   the   Father,  all  that  is  the 
Father's  is  the  Son's  as  in  an  Image  and  Expression,  let  it 
be  considered  dispassionately,  whether  a  substance  foreign 
from  the  Father's  substance  admit  of  such  attributes;  and 
whether  such  a  one  be  other  in  nature  and  alien  in   sub- 
1  «AX«-  stance 1,  and  not  one  in  substance  with  the  Father.     For  we 
J'U^'must  take  reverent  heed,  lest  transferring  what  is  proper2  to 
the  Father  to  what  is  unlike  Him  in  substance,  and  express- 
3«yfl/^/0-ing  the  Father's  godhead  by  what  is  unlike  in  kind3  and  alien 
in  substance,  we  introduce  another  substance  foreign  to  Him, 
yet  capable  of  the  properties  of  the  first  substance y,  and  lest 
Isai.      we  be  silenced  by  God  Himself,  saying,  My  glory  I  will  not 
give  to  another,  and  be   discovered  worshipping  this  alien 
God,  and  be  accounted  such  as  were  the  Jews  of  that  day,  who 
John      said,  Wherefore  dost  Thou,  being  a  man,  make  Thyself  God? 
referring,  the  while,  to  another  source  the  things  of  the  Spirit, 
Lute     and  blasphemously  saying,  He  casteth  out  devils  through  Beel- 
zebub.    But  if  this  is  shocking,  plainly  the  Son  is  not  unlike 
in  substance,  but  one  in  substance  with  the  Father;  for  if 
what  the  Father  hath  is  by  nature  the  Son's,  and  the  Son 

X  Arianism  was  placed  in  the  peril-  greatness  of  the  latter  error  .This  of  course 

ous  dilemma  ofdenying  Christ's  divinity,  was  the  objection  which  attached  to  the 

or    introducing    a    second    God.     The  words    ofioiet/fftev.    *T«£« A Aaxraf    tfxav, 

Arians  proper  went  off  in  the  former  £c.  when  disjoined  from  the  opoevtr.ov ; 

side  of  the  alternative,  the  Semi-arians  and  Eusebius's  language,  supr.  p.  63, 

on  the  latter;  and  Athan.,  as  here  ad-  note   g,   shews   us    that   it    is   not   an 

dressing  the  Semi-avians,  insists  on  the  imaginary  one. 

//'  the  Son  by  participation,  He  could  not  impart  Sonship.  151 

Himself  is  from   the  Father,  and  because  of  this  oneness  CHAP. 
of  godhead  and  of  nature  He  and  the  Father  are  one,  and  He  -  - 
that  hath  seen  the  Son  hath  seen  the  Father,  reasonably  is 
He  called  by  the  Fathers  "  One  in  substance  ;  "  for  to  what 
is  other  in  substance,  it  belongs  not  to  possess  such  preroga- 

22.  And  again,  if,  as  we  have  said  before,  the  Son  is  not  such  §.51. 
by  participation1,  but,  while  all  things   generated  have,  by!A*««i»- 
participation,  the  grace  of  God,  He  is  the  Father's  Wisdom  '" 
and  Word,  of  which  all  things  partake2,  it  follows  that  He2deDecr. 
being  the  deifying  and  enlightening  power  of  the  Father,  in  ^  n'0te 
which  all  things  are  deified  and  quickened,  is  not  alien  ine- 
substance  from  the  Father,  but  one  is  substance.     For  by 
partaking3  of  Him,  we  partake4  of  the  Father;  because  that3  ^ra- 
the Word  is  proper  to  the  Father.    Whence,  if  He  was  Him-  ,*£f*' 
self  too  from  participation,  and  not  from    the   Father   His4/"*™- 
substantial  Godhead  and  Image,  He  wrould  not  deify5,  being 

deified  Himself.     For  it  is  not  possible  that  He,  wrho  but  ««  Orat- 
possesses  from  participation,  should  impart  of  that  partaking  de  Deer'. 
to  others,  since  what  He  has  is  not  His  own,  but  the  Giver's  ;  J^1*' 
and  what  He  has  received,  is  barely  the  grace  sufficient  for  23. 

23.  However,  let  us  fairly  enquire  why  it  is  that  some,  as  is 
said,  decline  the  "  One  in  substance,"  whether  it  does  not  rather 
shew  that  the  Son  is  one  in  substance  with  the  Father.  They 
say  then,  as  you  have  written,  that  it  is  not  right  to  say  that 
the  Son  is  one  in  substance  with  the  Father,  because  He 
wiio  speaks  of  one  in  substance  speaks  of  three,  one  sub- 
stance pre-existing,  and  that  those  who  are  generated  from  it 
are  one  in  substance:  and  they  add,  "  If  then  the  Son  be  one 
in  substance  with  the  Father,  then  a  substance  must  be 
previously  supposed,  from  which  they  have  been  generated  ; 
and  that  the  One  is  not  Father  and  the  Other  Son,  but  they 
are  brothers  together2."  As  to  all  this,  though  it  be  a  Greek 

z  And   so    Eunomius   in   St.    Cyril,  Son,  and  brought  forth  the  Son,  and  re- 

"  '  Unless  once  the  Son  was  not,'  saith  maineth  Father,  and  is  not  called  Son 

he,  '  or  if  eternal,  and  co-existent  with  of  any  ;  and  the  Son  is  Son,  and  re- 

the  Father,  you  make  Him  not  a  Son  maineth  what  He  is,  and  is  not  called 

but  a  brother.'     The  Father  and  the  brother  of  any  by  nature.     What  place 

Son  are  not  from  any  pre-existing  ori-  then  shall  brotherhood  have  in  such  ?" 

gin,  that  they  should  be  thought  bro-  Thesaur.  pp.  22,  23.  vid.  A  than.  Orat. 

thers,  but  the  Father  is  origin  of  the  i.  §.  14. 

152  "  One  in  Substance"  does  not  imply  a  whole  and  parts. 

COUNC. interpretation,  and  what  Greeks  say  have  no  claim  upon  usa, 
AND1"  stiH  ^  us  see  whether  those  things  which  are  called  one  in  sub- 

SELEU.  stance  and  are  collateral,  as  derived  from  one  substance  pre-sup- 
posed,  are  one  in  substance  with  each  other,  or  with  the  sub- 
stance from  which  they  are  generated.  For  if  only  with  each 
other,  then  are  they  other  in  substance  and  unlike,  when  referred 
to  that  substance  which  generated  them;  for  other  in  substance 
is  opposed  to  one  in  substance;  but  if  each  be  one  in  substance 
with  the  substance  which  generated  them,  it  is  thereby  con- 
fessed that  what  is  generated  from  any  thing,  is  one  in  sub- 
stance with  that  which  generated  it;  and  there  is  no  need  of 
seeking  for  three  substances,  but  merely  to  seek,  whether  it 
be  true  that  this  is  from  thatb.  For  should  it  happen  that 

a  vid.  p.  52,  note  d.  The  word  ola-'iet 
in  its  Greek  or  Aristotelic  sense  seems 
to  have  stood  for  an  individual  substance, 
i  numerically  one,  which  is  predicable  of 
nothing  but  itself.  Improperly  it  stood 
;  for  a  species  or  genus,  vid.  Petav.  de 
I  Trin.  iv.  1.  §.  2.  but  as  Anastasius  ob- 
serves in  many  places  of  his  Viee  dux, 
Christian  theology  innovated  on  the 
sense  of  Aristotelic  terms,  vid.  c.  1. 
p.  20.  c.  6.  p.  96.  c.  9.  p.  150.  c.  17. 
p.  308.  There  is  some  difficulty  in  de- 
termining hoiv  it  innovated.  Anastasius 
and  Theorian,  Hodeg.  C.  Legat.  ad 
Ann.  pp.  441,2.  say  that  it  takes  eixrictto 
mean  an  universal  or  species,  but  this 
is  nothing  else  than  the  second  or  im- 
proper Greek  use.  Rather  it  takes  the 
word  in  a  sense  of  its  own  such  as  we 
have  no  example  of  in  things  created, 
viz.  that  of  a  Being  numerically  one,  sub- 
sisting in  three  persons;  so  that  the 
word  is  a  predicable  or  in  one  sense 
universal^  without  ceasing  to  be  indi- 
vidual ;  in  which  consists  the  mystery 
of  the  Holy  Trinity.  However,  heretics, 
who  refused  the  mystery,  objected  it  to 
Catholics  in  its  primary  philosophical 
sense;  and  then,  as  standing  for  an  in- 
dividual substance,  when  applied  to 
Father  and  Son,  it  either  implied  the 
parts  of  a  material  subject,  or  it  in- 
volved no  real  distinction  of  persons, 
i.  e.  Sabellianism.  The  former  of  these 
two  alternatives  is  implied  in  the  text 
by  the  "  Greek  use ;"  the  latter  by 
the  same  phrase  as  used  by  the 
conforming  Semi-arians,  A.  D.  363. 
"  .Nor,  as  if  any  passion  were  sup- 
posed of  the  ineffable  generation,  is 
the  term  '  substance'  taken  by  the 

Fathers,  &c.  nor  according  to  any 
Greek  use,  Socr.  iii.  25.  Hence 
such  charges  against  Catholicism  on 
the  part  of  Arians  as  Alexander  pro- 
tests against,  of  either  Sabellianism  or 
Valentinianism,  OUK  . , .  «Wi£  2a/3eXX/y 
*«/  BetXtvTivy  $oxt7.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3. 
p.  743.  In  like  manner,  Damascene, 
speaking  of  the  Jacobite  use  of  Qvrts  and 
vrefraerig  says,  "  Who  of  holy  men  ever 
thus  spoke?  unless  ye  introduce  to  us 
your  St.  Aristotle,  as  a  thirteenth  Apo- 
stle, and  prefer  the  idolater  to  the  di- 
vinely inspired."  cont.  Jacob.  10.  p. 
399.  and  so  again  Leontius,  speaking  of 
Philoponus,  who  from  the  Monophysite 
confusion  of  nature  and  hypostasis  was 
led  into  Tritheism.  "  He  thus  argued, 
taking  his  start  from  Aristotelic  princi- 
ples ;  for  Aristotle  says  that  there  are 
of  individuals  particular  substances  as 
well  as  one  common."  de  Sect.  v.  fin. 

b  The  argument,  when  drawn  out, 
is  virtually  this:  if,  because  two  sub- 
jects are  consubstantial,  a  third  is  pre- 
supposed of  which  they  partake,  then, 
since  either  of  these  two  is  consubstan- 
tial with  that  of  which  both  partake,  a 
new  third  must  be  supposed  in  which  it 
and  the  pre-existing  substance  partake, 
and  thus  an  infinite  series  of  things 
consubstantial  must  be  supposed.  The 
only  mode  (which  he  puts  first)  of  meet- 
ing this,  is  to  deny  that  the  two  things 
are  consubstantial  with  the  supposed 
third  ;  but  if  so,  they  must  be  different 
in  substance  from  it ;  that  is,  they  must 
differ  from  that,  as  partaking  of  which, 
they  are  like  each  other, — which  is  ab- 
surd, vid.  Basil.  Ep.  52.  n.  2. 

"  One  in  Substance"  does  not  imply  two  substances.      153 

there  were  not  two  brothers,  but  that  only  one  had  come  of  CHAP. 
that  substance,  he  that  was  generated  would  not  be  called  — — 
alien  in  substance,  merely  because  there  was  no  other  from 
that  substance  than  he ;  but  though  alone,  he  must  be  one  in 
substance  with  him  that  begat  him.     For  what  shall  we  say 
about  Jephthae's  daughter ;  because  she  was  only-begotten,  and 
he  had  not,  says  Scripture,  other  child;  and  again,  concerning  jud.  n, 
the  widow's  son,  whom  the  Lord  raised  from  the  dead,  be- 34' 
cause  he  too  had  no  brother,  but  was  only-begotten,  was  on 
that  account  neither  of  these  one  in  substance  with  the  pa- 
rent ?     Surely  they  were,  for  they  were  children,  and  this  is 
a  property  of  children  with  reference  to  their  parents.     And 
in  like  manner  also,  when  the  Fathers  said  that  the  Son  of 
God  was  from  His  substance,  reasonably  have  they  spoken  of 
Him  as  one  in   substance.     For  the  like  property  has  the 
radiance  compared  with  the  light.     Else  it  follows  that  not 
even  the  creation  came  out  of  nothing.     For  whereas  men 
beget  with  passion1,  so  again  they  work  upon  an  existing  sub- » Orat.i. 
ject  matter,  and  otherwise  cannot  make.     But  if  we  do  not*      " 
understand  creation  in  a  human  way c,  when  we  attribute  it  to 
God,  much  less  seemly  is  it  to  understand  generation  in  a 
human  way,  or  to  give  a  corporeal  sense  to  One  in  substance ; 
instead  of  receding  from  things  generate,  casting  away  human 
images,  nay,  all  things  sensible,  and  ascending2  to  the  Father3, 9  Naz. 
lest  we  rob  the  Father  of  the  Son  in  ignorance,  and  rank2<ra 
Him  among  His  own  creatures. 

24.  Further,  if,  in  confessing  Father  and  Son,  we  spoke  of  two  §.  52. 
origins  or  two  Gods,  as  Marcion3  and  Valentinus4,  or  said  that3  p.  45, 
the  Son  had  any  other  mode  of  godhead,  and  was  not  the  Image  J  ' 
and  Expression  of  the  Father,  as  being  by  nature  bom  from  3. 

c  vid.  de  Deer.  §.  11.  supr.  p.  18,  human  sense  which  can  apply  to  Him. 
note  o.  also  Cyril,  Thesaur.  iv.  p.  29.  Now  <y'twtjfis  implies  two  things, — pas- 
Basil,  contr.  Eun.  ii.  23.  Hil.  de  Syn.  sion,  and  relationship,  oixtiaris  <pv<rtus; 
17.  accordingly  we  must  take  the  latter  as 

d  S.  Basil  says  in  like  manner  that,  an  indication  of  the  divine  sense  of  the 

though  God  is  Father  xv^iug  properly,  term.  On  the  terms  Son,  Word,  &c. 

(vid.  Ath.  Orat.  i.  21  fin.  and  p.  16,  being  figurative,  or  illustrations,  and 

note  k.  p.  18,  note  o.  p.  56,  note  k.)  how  to  use  them,  vid.  also  de  Deer, 

yet  it  comes  to  the  same  thing  if  we  §.  12.  supr.  p.  20.  Orat.  i.  §.  26,  27.  ii. 

were  to  say  that  He  is  r£tirix&>{  and  §.  32.  iii.  §.  18.  67.  Basil,  contr.  Eunom. 

i*  Ati~«<p«g«?,  figuratively,  such;  contr.  ii.  17.  Hil.  de  Trin.  iv.  2.  Vid.  also 

Eun.  ii.  24.  for  in  that  case  we  must,  as  Athan.  ad  Scrap,  i.  20.  and  Basil.  Ep. 

in  other  metaphors  used  of  Him,  (anger,  38.  n.  5.  and  what  is  said  of  the  office 

sleep,  Hying,)  take  that  part  of  the  of  faith  in  each  of  these. 

154  TkeFatket  andSon  not  two  Gods,for  theSonfrom  the  Father, 

COUNC.  Him,  then  He  might  be  considered  unlike ;  for  such  sub- 
AAND    stances  are  altogether  unlike  each  other.     But  if  we  acknow- 
SEI/EU.  ledge  that  the  Father's   godhead  is  one  and  sole,  and  that  of 
Him  the  Son  is  the  Word  and  Wisdom ;  and,  as  thus  believ- 
ing, are  far  from  speaking  of  two  Gods,  but  understand  the 
oneness  of  the  Son  with  the  Father  to  be,  not  in  likeness  of  their 
teaching,  but  according  to  substance  and  in  truth,  and  hence 
speak  not  of  two  Gods  hut  of  one  God;  there  being  but  one 
Face6  of  Godhead,  as  the  Light  is  one  and  the  Radiance ;  (for 
Gen. 32,  this  was  seen  by  the  Patriarch  Jacob,  as  Scripture  says,  The 
sun  rose  upon  him  when  the  Face  of  God  passed  by ;  and 
beholding  this,  and   understanding  of  whom  He  was   Son 
and  Image,  the  holy  Prophets   say,  Tlie  Word  of  the  Lord 
came  to  me ;  and  recognising  the  Father,  who  was  beheld 
and  revealed  in  Him,  they  were  bold  to  say,  The  God  of  our 
fathers  hath  appeared  unto  me,  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob;}  this  being  so,  wherefore  scruple  we  to 
call  Him  one  in  substance  who  is  one  with  the  Father,  and 
appears  as  doth  the  Father,  according  to  likeness  and  oneness 
of  godhead  ?    For  if,  as  has  been  many  times  said,  He  has 
it  not  to  be  proper  to  the  Father's  substance,  nor  to  resem- 
ble, as  a  Son,  we  may  well  scruple :  but  if  this  be  the  il- 
luminating and  creative  Power,  specially  proper  to  the  Father, 
without  whom  He  neither  frames  nor  is  known,  (for  all  things 
consist  through  Him  and  in  Him ;)  wherefore,  having  cog- 
nizance of  this  truth,  do  we  decline  to  use  the  phrase  convey- 
ing it  ?    For  what  is  it  to  be  thus  connatural  with  the  Father, 
but  to  be  one  in  substance  \vith  Him  ?    for  God  attached  not  Him  the  Son  from  without1,  as  needing  a  servant;  nor  are 
p.  14^"  tne  works  on  a  level  with  the  Creator,  and  are  honoured  as 
noteb.    pje  is?  or  to  be  thought  one  with  the  Father.     Or  let  a  man 
venture  to  make  the  distinction,  that  the  sun  and  the  radiance 
are  two  lights,  or  different  substances;  or  to   say  that  the 
radiance  accrued  to  it  over  and  above,  and  is  not  a  single 

8  tt/as  ovres  tfiuvs  Otorvros',    the  word  and  hypostasis,  are  all  synonymous,  i.  e. 

i"Saj,  face   or   countenance,  will   come  as  one  and  all  denoting  the  Una  Res, 

before  us  in  Orat.  iii.  16.  It  is  generally  which  is  Almighty  God.  They  differed, 

applied  to  the  Son,  as  in  what  follows,  in  that  the  word  hypostasis  regards  the 

and  is   synonymous   with    hypostasis;  One  God  as  He  is  the  Son.   The  ap- 

but  it  is   remarkable   that  here   it  is  parent  confusion  is  useful  then  as  re- 

almost  synonymous  with  outrtot,  or  0iW.  minding  us  of  this  great  truth  ;  vid.  the 

Indeed  in  one  sense  nature,  substance,  next  note. 

as  the  sun  and  radiance  not  tivo  lights. 


and  uncompounded  offspring  from  the  sun;  such,  that  sun  and  CHAP. 

radiance  are  two,  but  the  light  one,  because  the  radiance  is  an — 

offspring  from  the  Sun.  But,  whereas  not  more  divisible,  nay 
less  divisible  is  the  nature f  of  the  Son  towards  the  Father,  and 
the  godhead  not  accruing  to  the  Son,  but  the  Father's  god- 
head being  in  the  Son,  so  that  he  that  hath  seen  the  Son  hath 
seen  the  Father  in  Him ;  wherefore  should  not  such  a  one 
be  called  One  in  substance  ? 

25.  Even  this  is  sufficient  to  dissuade  you  from  blaming  those  §.  53. 
who  have  said  that  the  Son  was  one  in  substance  with  the  Father 
and  yet  let  us  examine  the  very  term  "  One  in  substance,"  in 
itself,  by  way  of  seeing  whether  we  ought  to  use  it  at  all,  and 
whether  it  be  a  proper  term,  and  is  suitable  to  apply  to  the  Son. 
For  you  know  yourselves,  and  no  one  can  dispute  it,  that 
Like  is  not  predicated   of  substances,  but   of  habits,  and     V 
qualities ;  for  in  the  case  of  substances  we  speak,  not  of  like- 
ness, but  of  identity  g.     Man,  for  instance,  is  said  to  be  like 

f  Qvfts,  nature,  is  here  used  for  person. 
This  seems  an  Alexandrian  use  of  the 
word.  It  is  found  in  Alexander,  ap. 
Theod  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  740.  And  it  gives 
rise  to  a  celebrated  question  in  the 
Monophysite  controversy,  as  used  in  S. 
Cyril's  phrase  ptict  Qufi;  ffitrtt^xuiu.^)) . 
S.  Cyril  uses  the  word  both  for  person 
and  for  substance  successively  in  the 
following  passage.  "  Perhaps  some  one 
will  say, '  How  is  the  Holy  and  Adorable 
Trinity  distinguished  into  three  Hypo- 
stases,  yet  issues  in  one  nature  of 
Godhead  ?'  Because  the  Same  in 
substance  necessarily  following  the 
difference  of  natures,  recals  the  minds 
of  believers  to  one  nature  of  Godhead." 
contr.  Nest.  iii.  p.  91.  In  this  pas- 
sage "  One  nature"  stands  for  a  reality; 
but  "  three  Natures"  is  the  One  Eternal 
Divine  Nature  viewed  in  that  respect 
in  which  He  is  Three.  And  so  S.  Hilary, 
naturse  ex  natura  gignente  nativitas; 
de  Syn.  17.  and  essentia  de  essen- 
tia,  August  de  Trin.  vii.  n.  3  and  de 
seipso  genuit  Deus  id  quod  est,  de 
Fid.  et  Symb.  4.  i.  e.  He  is  the  Ador- 
able fioTfit  or  Godhead  viewed  as  begot- 
ten. And  Athan.  Orat.  iv.  $.  1.  calls  the 
Father  \^  ova-ias  ov/n^vs.  vid.  supr.  p.  148. 
ref.  4.  These  phrases  mean  that  the  Son 
who  is  the  Divine  Substance,  is  from  the 
Fathem'/?0?'s  the  [same]  divine  substance. 
As,  (to  speak  of  what  is  analogous  not 
parallel;)  we  might  say  that  "  man  is 

father  of  man,"  not  meaning  by  man 
the  same  individual  in  both  cases,  but 
the  same  nature,  so  here  we  speak  not 
of  the  same  Person  in  the  two  cases, 
but  the  same  Individuum.  All  these 
expressions  resolve  themselves  into  the 
original  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  that 
Person  and  Individuum  are  not  equiva- 
lent terms,  and  we  understand  them  nei- 
ther more  nor  less  than  we  understand  it. 
In  like  manner  as  regards  the  incarna- 
tion, when  St.  Paul  says  "  God  was  in 
Christ;"  he  does  not  mean  absolutely 
the  Divine  Nature,  which  is  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  but  the  Divine  Na- 
ture as  existing  in  the  Person  of  the 
Son.  Hence  too,  (vid.  Petav.  de  Trin. 
vi.  10.  §.  6.)  such  phrases  as  "  the  Fa- 
ther begat  the  Son  from  His  substance." 
And  in  like  manner  Athan.  just  after- 
wards, speaks  of  "  the  Father's  God- 
head being  mthe  Son."  vid.  supr.  p.  145, 
note  r. 

g  S.  Athanasius,  in  saying  that  like 
is  not  used  of  substance,  implies  that 
the  proper  Arian  senses  of  the  opatot  are 
more  natural,  and  therefore  the  more  pro- 
bable, if  the  word  came  into  use.  These 
were,  1  .likeness  in  will  and  action,  <isfufi- 
qtuvia  2. likeness 
to  the  idea  in  God's  mind  in  which  the 
Son  was  created.  Cyril  Thesaur.  p.  1 34. 
3.  likeness  to  the  divine  act  or  energy  by 
which  He  was  created.  Pseudo-Basil, 
contr. Eun.iv.  p.  282.  Cyril  in  Joan.  c.5. 

156  If  we  believe  the  Nicene  sense,  let  us  accept  the  words.,  not  in  substance,  but  according  to  habit  and  character; 
j^JJJ '  for  in  substance  men  are  one  in  nature.  And  again,  man  is 

SELEU.  not  said  to  be  unlike  dog,  but  to  be  other  in  nature.  There- 
fore, in  speaking  of  Like  according  to  substance,  we  mean  like 

lftir«ufict  by  participation  * ;  (for  Likeness  is  a  quality,  which  may  attach 
to  substance,)  and  this  is  proper  to  creatures,  for  they,  by  par- 

2  t*i*»M  taking2,  are  made  like  to  God.     For  when  He  shall  appear, 

3,  2.  says  Scripture,  we  shall  be  like  Him ;  like,  that  is,  not  in 
substance  but  in  sonship,  which  we  shall  partake  from  Him. 

^trovctee.  If  then  ye  speak  of  the  Son  as  being  by  participation  3,  then 
indeed  call  Him  Like  in  substance ;  but  thus  spoken  of,  He 
is  not  Truth,  nor  Light  at  all,  nor  in  nature  God.  For  things 
which  are  from  participation,  are  called  like,  not  in  reality, 
but  from  resemblance  to  reality ;  so  that  they  may  fail,  or  be 
taken  from  those  who  share  them.  And  this,  again,  is  proper 
to  creatures  and  works.  Therefore,  if  this  be  extravagant,  He 
must  be,  not  by  participation,  but  in  nature  and  truth  Son, 
Light,  Wisdom,  God;  and  being  by  nature,  and  not  by 
sharing,  He  would  properly  be  called,  not  Like  in  sub- 
stance, but  One  in  substance.  But  what  would  not  be 
asserted,  even  in  the  case  of  others,  (for  the  Like  has  been 
shewn  to  be  inapplicable  to  substance,)  is  it  not  folly,  not 
to  say  violence,  to  put  forward  in  the  case  of  the  Son,  instead 
of  the  "  One  in  substance  ?" 

§.  54.  26.  This  justifies  the  Nicene  Council,  wh'ch  has  laid  down, 
what  it  was  becoming  to  express,  that  the  Son,  begotten  from 
the  Father's  substance,  is  one  in  substance  with  Him.  And 
if  we  too  have  been  taught  the  same  thing,  let  us  not  fight 
with  shadows,  especially  as  knowing,  that  they  who  have  so 
defined,  have  made  this  confession  of  faith,  not  to  misrepresent 
the  truth,  but  as  vindicating  the  truth  and  religiousness  towards 
Christ,  and  also  as  destroying  the  blasphemies  against  Him  of 

4  p.  91,  the  Ario-maniacs 4.  For  this  must  be  considered  and  noted 
carefully,  that,  in  using  unlike  in  substance,  and  other  in 
substance,  we  signify  not  the  true  Son,  but  some  one  of  the 
creatures,  and  an  introduced  and  adopted  Son,  which  pleases 
the  heretics ;  but  when  we  speak  un controversially  of  the  One 

iii.p.  304.  4.  \\^Q  according  to  the  Sci'ip-     which  was,  as  they  understood  it,  an 
tures ;  which  of  course  was  but  an  eva-     evasion  also, 
sion.  6.  like  in  all  things,  ***«, 

Exhortation  to  maintain  the  truth  and  live  in  unity.   157 

in  substance,  we  signify  a  genuine  Son  born  of  the  Father ;  CHAP. 

though  at  this  Christ's  enemies  often  burst  with  rage1.  l - 

27.  What  then  I  have  learned  myself,  and  have  heard  men  note  l/ 
of  judgment  say,  I  have  written  in  few  words;  but  ye  re- 
maining on  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles,  and  holding  fast 
the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  pray  that  now  at  length  all 
strife  and  rivalry  may  cease,  and  the  futile  questions  of  the 
heretics  may  be  condemned,  and  all  logomachy h ;  and  the 
guilty  and  murderous  heresy  of  the  Arians  may  disappear, 
and  the  truth  may  shine  again  in  the  hearts  of  all,  so  that  all 
every  where  may  say  the  same  thing,  and  think  the  same 
thing ! ;  and  that,  no  Arian  contumelies  remaining,  it  may  be 
said  and  confessed  in  every  Church,  One  Lord,  one  faith, 
baptism,  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  through  whom  to  the 
Father  be  the  glory  and  the  strength,  unto  ages  of  ages. 

&  And  so  <ra.7s  *.o>yofAa%iais.  Basil  de 
Sp.  S.  n.  16.  It  is  used  with  an  allusion 
to  the  fight  against  the  Word, 
r»ftct%t7v  and  4ia/At>t%t7v.  Thus 
%tiv  ftt*.tr$ffetvrts ,  xtti  Keif 
fict%ouvTts,  Iffovrtti  (ttr  oX/y«v  vix^ai  rn 
K^ayitf.  Scrap,  iv.  1. 

1  This  sentiment  will  give  opportu- 
nity for  a  note  on  the  Semi-arians, 
which  has  been  omitted  in  its  proper 
place,  $.41and43.vid.  p. 141 .  ref.4.  There 
S.  Athanasius  calls  certain  of  them 
"brethren"  and  "  beloved,"  Kyonrwroi. 
S.  Hilary  too  calls  them  "  sanctissimi 
viri."  de  Syn.  80.  On  the  other  hand, 
Athan. speaks  severely  of  Eustathius  and 
Basil.  Ep.  JEg.  7.  and  Hilary  explains 
himself  inhis  notes  upon  his  de  Syn.  from 
which  it  appears  that  he  had  been  ex- 
postulated with  on  his  conciliatory 
tone.  Indeed  all  throughout  he  had 
betrayed  a  consciousness  that  he  should 
offend  some  parties,  e.  g.  §.  6.  In 
§.  77,  he  had  spoken  of  "  having  ex- 
pounded the  faithful  and  religious  sense 
of'  like  in  substance,'  which  is  called 
Homoeusion."  On  this  he  observes, 
note  3,  "  I  think  no  one  need  be 
asked  to  consider  why  I  have  said  in 
this  place  '  religious  sense  of  like  in 
substance,'  except  that  I  meant  that 
there  was  also  an  irreligious ;  and  that 
therefore  I  said  that  '  like'  was  not  only 
equal  but  the  '  same.'  vid.  p.  139,  note 
1.  In  the  next  note  he  speaks  of 
them  as  not  more  than  hopeful.  Still 

it  should  be  observed  how  careful  the 
Fathers  of  the  day  were  not  to  mix  up 
the  question  of  doctrine,  which  rested 
on  Catholic  tradition  with  that  of  the 
adoption  of  a  certain  term  which  rested 
on  a  Catholic  injunction.  Not  that  the 
term  was  not  in  duty  to  be  received, 
but  it  was  to  be  received  on  account  of 
its  Catholic  sense,  and  where  the  Ca- 
tholic sense  was  held,  the  word  might 
even  by  a  sort  of  dispensation  be  waived. 
It  is  remarkable  that  Athanasius 
scarcely  mentioned  the  word  "  One 
in  substance"  in  his  Orations  or  Dis- 
courses which  are  to  follow  ;  nor  does 
it  occur  in  S.  Cyril's  Catecheses,  of 
whom,  as  being  suspected  of  Semi- 
arianism,  it  might  have  been  required, 
before  his  writings  were  received  as  of 
authority.  The  word  was  not  imposed 
upon  Ursacius  and  Valens,  A.D.  349. 
by  Pope  Julius ;  nor  in  the  Council  of 
Aquileia  in  381,  was  it  offered  by  St. 
Ambrose  to  Palladius  andSecundianus. 
S.  Jerome's  account  of  the  apology 
made  by  the  Fathers  of  Ariminum  is  of 
the  same  kind.  "  We  thought,"  they 
said,  "  the  sense  corresponded  to  the 
words,  nor  in  the  Church  of  God,  where 
there  is  simplicity,  and  a  pure  confes- 
sion, did  we  fear  that  one  thing  would 
be  concealed  in  the  heart,  another 
uttered  by  the  lips.  We  were  deceived 
by  our  good  opinion  of  the  bad."  ad 
Lucif.  19. 

158     Letter  of  Cons  tan  this  to  the  Council  of  Ariminum. 


ARIM.  Postscript. 


SELEU.      28.  After  I  had  written  my  account  of  the  Council l,  I  had 
§•  55- information  that  the  most  irreligious2  Constantius  had  sent 

J  QQ 

note  h.'  Letters  to  the  Bishops  remaining  in  Ariminum ;  and  T  have 
3  P-  90>  taken  pains  to  get  copies  of  them  from  true  brethren  and  to 
send  them  to  you,  and  also  what  the  Bishops  answered  ;  that 
you  may  know  the  irreligious  craft  of  the  Emperor,  and  the 
firm  and  unswerving  purpose  of  the  Bishops  towards  the 

Interpretation  of  the  Letter*. 

Constantius,  Victorious  and  Triumphant,  Augustus,  to  all  Bishops 
who  are  assembled  at  Ariminum. 

That  the  divine  and  adorable  Law  is  our  chief  care,  your  excel- 
lencies are  not  ignorant ;  but  as  yet  we  have  been  unable  to  receive 
the  twenty  Bishops  sent  by  your  wisdom,  and  charged  with  the 
legation  from  you,  for  we  are  pressed  by  a  necessary  expedition 
against  the  Barbarians ;  and  as  ye  know,  it  beseems  to  have  the 
soul  clear  from  every  care,  when  one  handles  the  matters  of  the 
Divine  Law.  Therefore  we  have  ordered  the  Bishops  to  await 
our  return  at  Adrianople ;  that,  when  all  public  affairs  are  well- 
arranged,  then  at  length  we  may  hear  and  weigh  their  sug- 
gestions. Let  it  not  then  be  grievous  to  your  constancy  to  await 
their  return,  that,  when  they  come  back  with  our  answer  to  you, 
ye  may  be  able  to  bring  matters  to  a  close  which  so  deeply  affect 
the  well-being  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

29.  This  was  what  the  Bishops  received  at  the  hands  of 
three  messengers. 

Reply  of  the  Bishops. 

The  letter  of  your  humanity  we  have  received,  most  religious 
Lord  Emperor,  which  reports  that,  on  account  of  stress  of  public 
affairs,  as  yet  you  have  been  unable  to  attend  to  our  legates ;  and 
in  which  you  command  us  to  await  their  return,  until  your  godli- 
ness shall  be  advised  by  them  of  what  we  have  defined  conformably 
to  our  ancestors.  H  o  wever,  we  now  profess  and  aver  at  once  by  these 
presents,  that  we  shall  not  recede  from  our  purpose,  as  we  also  in- 
structed our  legates.  We  ask  then  that  you  will  with  serene  counte- 
nance command  these  letters  of  our  mediocrity  to  be  read  before 
you ;  as  well  as  will  graciously  receive  those,  with  which  we 
charged  our  legates.  This  however  your  gentleness  compre- 
hends as  well  as  we,  that  great  grief  and  sadness  at  present 

k  These  two  Letters  are  both  in  Socr.  ii.  15.  p.  878.  in  a  different  version 
ii.  37.  And  the  latter  is  in  Theod.  Hist,  from  the  Latin  original. 

Letter  of  the  Council  of  Ariminum  to  Constantius.    159 

prevail,  because  that,  in  these  your  most  happy  days,  so  many  CHAP. 
Churches  are  without  Bishops.     And  on  this  account  \ve  again     HI. 
request   your  humanity,  most  religious  Lord  Emperor,  that,  if 
it  please  your  religiousness,  you  would  command  us,  before  the 
severe  winter  weather  sets  in,  to  return  to  our  Churches,  that  so 
we  may  be  able,  unto  God  Almighty  and  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Christ,  His  Only-begotten  Son,  to  fulfil  together  with  our  flocks 
our  wonted  prayers  in  behalf  of  your  imperial  sway,  as  indeed 
we  have  ever  performed  them,  and  at  this  time  make  them. 

NOTE  on  Chapter  II. 
Concerning  the  Confessions  at  Sir-miiim. 

NOTE        IT  has  been  thought  advisable  to  draw  up,  as  carefully  as  may 

ON      be,  a  statement  of  the  various  Arian  Confessions  which  issued  at 

COUNC.  Sirmjunij  with  the  hope  of  presenting  to  the  reader  in  a  compen- 

A^D*'  dious  form  an  intricate  passage  of  history. 

1.     A.  D.  351.     Confession  against  Photinus  f 
(First  Sirmian.  snpr.  p.  118.) 

This  Confession  was  published  at  a  Council  of  Eastern  Bisho^ 
(Coustant  in  Hil.  p.  1 174,  note  1,)  and  was  drawn  up  by  the  whole 
body,  Hil.  de  Syn.  37-  (according  to  Sirmond.  Diatr.  1.  Sirm.  p. 
366.  Petavius  de  Trin.  1.  9.  §.  8.  Animadv.  in  Epiph.  p.  318  init. 
and  Coustant.  in  Hil.  1.  c.)  or  by  Basil  of  Ancyra  (as  Valesius  con- 
jectures in  Soz.  iv.  22.  and  Larroquanus,  de  Liberio,  p.  147.)  or 
by  Mark  of  Arethusa,  Socr.  ii.  30.  but  he  confuses  together  the 
dates  of  the  different  Confessions,  and  this  is  part  of  his  mistake, 
(vid.  Vales,  in  loc.  Coustant.  in  Hil.  de  Syn.  1.  c.  Petav.  Animad. 
in  Epiph.  1.  c.)  It  was  written  in  Greek. 

Till  Petavius a,  Socrates  was  generally  followed  in  ascribing  all 
three  Sirmian  Confessions  to  this  one  Council,  though  at  the  same 
time  he  was  generally  considered  mistaken  as  to  the  year.  E.  g. 
Baronius  places  them  all  in  357-  Sirmond  defended  Baronius 
against  Petavius ;  (though  in  Facund.  x.  6.  note  c,  he  agrees 
with  Petavius,)  and  assigning  the  third  Confession  to  359, 
adopted  the  improbable  conjecture  of  two  Councils,  the  one 
Catholic  and  the  other  Arian,  held  at  Sirmium  at  the  same  time, 
putting  forth  respectively  the  first  and  second  Creeds  somewhat 
after  the  manner  of  the  contemporary  rival  Councils  of  Sardica. 
Pagi,  Natalis  Alexander,  Valesius,  de  Marca,  Tillemont,  S.Basnage, 
Montfaucon,  Coustant,  Larroquanus  (dela  Roque,)  agree  with  Pe- 
tavius in  placing  the  Council  at  which  Photinus  was  deposed,  and 
the  Confession  published  by  it,  in  A.  D.  351.  Mansi  dates  it 
at  358. 

n  Dicam  non  jactantise  causa,  sed  ut  precabor,  quin  id  vanissime  a  me  dictum 

eruditi  lectoris  studium   excitem,  for-  omnes  arbitrentur.  Petav.  Animadv.  in 

tassis  audacius,  ab  hinc  mille  ac  ducen-  Epiph.  p.  306.     Nos  ex  antiquis  patri- 

tis  propemodum  annis  liquidam  ac  sin-  bus  primum  illud  odorati  sumus,  tres 

ceram  illorum  rationem  ignoratam  fu-  omnino  conventus  Episcoporum  eodem 

isse.     Quod  nisi  certissimis  argumentis  in  Sirmiensi  oppido,  non  iisdem  tempo- 

indiciisque  monstravero,  nihil  ego  de-  ribns  celebrates  fuisse.  ibid.  p.  113. 

Sirmian  Confessions.  161 

This  was  the  Confession  which  Pope  Liberius  signed  according  NOTE 
to  Baronius,  N.Alexander,  and  Constant  in  Hil.  note  n.  p.  1335-7,      L 
and  as  Tillemont  thinks  probable. 

In  p.  114,  note  b.  supr.  the  successive  condemnations  of  Pho-  C^^' 
tinns  are  enumerated;  but  as  this  is  an  intricate  point  on  which    AND  * 
there  is  considerable  difference  of  opinion  among  critics,  it  may  be  SELEU. 
advisable  to  state  them  here,  as  they  are  determined  by  various 

Petavius,  (de  Photino  Hseretico,  1.)  enumerates  in  all  five  Coun- 
cils:— 1.  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  336,  when  Marcellus  was  de- 
posed, vid.  supr.  p.  109,  note  m.  (where  for  "  same"  year,  read 
"  next"  year.)  2.  At  Sardica,  A.D.  347-  3.  At  Milan,  A.D.  347- 
4.  At  Sirmium,  34-9.  5.  At  Sirmium,  when  he  was  deposed, 
A.D.  351.  Of  these  the  4th  and  5th  were  first  brought  to  light 
by  Petavius,  who  omits  mention  of  the  Macrostich  in  345. 

Petavius  is  followed  by  Natalis  Alexander,  Montfaucon,  (vit 
Athan.)  and  Tillemont;  and  by  De  Marca,  (Diss.  de  temp.  Syn. 
Sirm.)  and  S.  Basnage,  (Annales,)  and  Valesius,  (in  Theod.  Hist. 

11.  16.  p.  23.  Socr.  ii.  20.)  as  regards  the  Council  of  Milan,  except 
that  Valesius  places  it  with  Sirmond  in  346 ;  but  for  the  Council 
of  Sirmium  in  349,  they  substitute  a  Council  of  Rome  of  the  same 
date,  while  de  Marca  considers  Photinus  condemned  again  in  the 
Eusebian  Council  of  Milan  in  355.     De  la  Roque,  on  the  other 
hand,  (Larroquan.  Dissert,  de  Photino  Haer.)  considers  that  Pho- 
tinus was  condemned,    1.  in   the   Macrostich,  344  [345].   2.  at 
Sardica,  347.  3.  at  Milan,  348.  4.  at  Sirmium,  350.  5.  at  Sirmium, 

Petavius  seems  to  stand  alone  in  assigning  to  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  336,  his  first  condemnation. 

2.  A.D.  357.   The  Blasphemy  of  Potamius  and  Hosius, 
(Second  Sirmian.  supr.  p.  122.) 

Hilary  calls  it  by  the  above  title,  de  Syn.  11.  vid.  also  Soz. 
iv.  12.  p.  554.  He  seems  also  to  mean  it  by  the  blasphemia 
Ursacii  et  Valentis,  contr.  Const.  26. 

This  Confession  was  the  first  overt  act  of  disunion  between 
Arians  and  Semi-Arians. 

Sirmond,  de  Marca  and  Valesius,  (in  Socr.  ii.  30,)  after  Pha?- 
badius,  think  it  put  forth  by  a  Council;  rather,  at  a  Conference 
of  a  few  leading  Arians  about  Constantius,  who  seems  to  have 
been  present;  e.  g.  Ursacius,  Valens,  and  Germinius.  Soz.  iv. 

12.  Vid.  also  Hil.  Fragm.  vi.  7- 

It  was  written  in  Latin,  Socr.  ii.  30.  Potamius  wrote  very 
barbarous  Latin,  judging  from  the  Tract  ascribed  to  him  in 
Dacher.  Spicileg.  t.  3.  p.  299,  unless  it  be  a  translation  from  the 
Greek,  vid.  also  Galland.  Bibl.  t.  v.  p.  96.  Petavius  thinks  the 
Creed  not  written,  but  merely  subscribed  by  Potamius.  de  Trin. 
i.  9.  §.  8.  and  Coustant.  in  Hil.  p.  1155,  note  f,  that  it  was  written 
by  Ursacius,  Valens,  and  Potamius.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
Greek  in  Athanasius  is  clearer  than  the  original. 

This  at  first  sight  is  the  Creed  which  Liberius  signed,  because 


162  tiirmian  Confessions. 

NOTE  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  the  latter  as  "  perfidia  Ariana,"  Fragm.  6. 
I-  Blondel,  (Prim,  dans  1'Eglise,  p.  484.)  Larroquanus,  &c.  are  of  this 
opinion.  And  the  Roman  Breviary,  Ed.  Ven.  1482,,  and  Ed. 
Par.  1543,  in  the  Service  for  S.  Eusebius  of  Rome,  August.  14. 
says  that  "  Pope  Liberius  consented  to  the  Arian  misbelief," 
Launnoi.  Ep.  v.  9.  c.  13.  Auxilius  says  the  same,  ibid.  vi.  14. 
Animadv.  5.  n.  18.  Petavius  grants  that  it  must  be  this,  if  any 
of  the  three  Sirmian,  (Animadv.  in  Epiph.  p.  31 6,)  but  we  shall 
see  his  own  opinion  presently. 


3.  A.D.  367.   The  foregoing  interpolated. 

A  creed  was  sent  into  the  East  in  Hosius's  name,  Epiph.  H 
73.  14.  Soz.  iv.  15.  p.  558,  of  an  Anomosan  character,  which  t 
"  blasphemia"  was  not.  And  S.  Hilary  may  allude  to  this  when 
he  speaks  of  the  "  deliramenta  Osii,  et  incrementa  Ursacii  et 
Valentis,"  contr.  Const.  23.  An  Anomoean  Council  of  Antioch 
under  Eudoxius  of  this  date,  makes  acknowledgments  to  Ursacius, 
Valens,  and  Germinius.  Soz.  iv.  12  fin.  as  being  agents  in  the 
Arianising  of  the  West. 

Petavius  and  Tillemont  considers  this  Confession  to  be  the 
"  blasphemia"  interpolated.  Petavius  throws  out  a  further  con- 
jecture, which  seems  gratuitous,  that  the  whole  of  the  latter  part 
of  the  Creed  is  a  later  addition,  and  that  Liberius  only  signed  the 
former  part.  Animadv.  in  Epiph.  p.  31 6. 

4.  A.D.  358.   The  Ancyrene  Anathemas. 

The  Semi- Arian  party  had  met  in  Council  at  Ancyra  in  the  early 
spring  of  358  to  protest  against  the  "  blasphemia,"  and  that  with 
some  kind  of  correspondence  with  the  Gallic  Bishops  who  had 
just  condemned  it,  Phaebadius  of  Agen  writing  a  Tract  against  it, 
which  is  still  extant.  They  had  drawn  up  and  signed,  besides,  a 
Synodal  Letter,  eighteen  anathemas,  the  last  against  the  "  One  in 
substance."  These,  except  the  last,  or  the  last  six,  they  submitted 
at  the  end  of  May  to  the  Emperor  who  was  again  at  Sirmium. 
Basil,  Eustathius,  Eleusius,  and  another  formed  the  deputation; 
and  their  influence  persuaded  Constantius  to  accept  the  Ana- 
themas, and  even  to  oblige  the  party  of  Valens,  at  whose  "  blas- 
phemia" they  were  levelled,  to  recant  and  subscribe  them. 

5.  A.D.  358.  Semi- Arian  Digest  of  Three  Confessions. 

The  Semi- Arian  Bishops,  pursuing  their  advantage,  composed 
a  Creed  out  of  three,  that  of  the  Dedication,  the  first  Sirmian,  and 
the  Creed  of  Antioch  against  Paul  264 — 270,  in  which  the  "  One 
in  substance"  is  said  to  have  been  omitted  or  forbidden.  Soz.  iv. 
15.  This  Confession  was  imposed  by  Imperial  authority  on  the 
Arian  party,  who  signed  it.  So  did  Liberius,  Soz.  ibid.  Hil.  Fragm. 
vi.  6.  7;  and  Petavius  considers  that  this  is  the  subscription  by 
which  he  lapsed,  de  Trin.  i.  9-  §•  5.  Animadv.  in  Epiph.  p.  316. 
and  S.  Basnage,  in  Ann.  358.  13. 

It  is  a  point  of  controversy  whether  or  not  the  Arians  at  this 
time  suppressed  the  "  blasphemia."  Socrates  and  Sozomen  say 

Sirmian  Confessions.  163 

that  they  made  an  attempt  to  recall  the  copies  they  had  issued,  NOTE 
and  even  obtained  an  edict  from  the  Emperor  for  this  purpose,      I. 
but  without  avail.     Socr.  ii.  30  fin.  Soz.  iv.  6.  p.  543.  ON 

Athanasius,  on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  supr.  p.  123,  £nuu 
relates  this  in  substance  of  the  third  Confession  of  Sirmium,  not  AND  ' 
of  the  "  blasphemia"  or  second.  SELEU. 

Tillemont  follows  Socrates  and  Sozomen ;  considering  that 
Basil's  influence  with  the  Emperor  enabled  him  now  to  insist  on 
a  retractation  of  the  "  blasphemia."  And  he  argues  that  Germi- 
nius  in  366,  being  suspected  of  orthodoxy,  and  obliged  to  make 
profession  of  heresy,  was  referred  by  his  party  to  the  formulary 
of  Ariminum,  no  notice  being  taken  of  the  "  blasphemia,"  which 
looks  as  if  it  were  suppressed ;  whereas  Germinius  himself  appeals 
to  the  third  Sirmian,  which  is  a  proof  that  it  was  not  suppressed. 
Hil.  Fragm.  15.  Coustant.  in  Hil.  contr.  Const.  26,  though  he 
does  not  adopt  the  opinion  himself,  observes,  that  the  charge 
brought  against  Basil,  Soz.  iv.  132.  Hil.  1.  c.  by  the  Acacians  of 
persuading  the  Africans  against  the  second  Sirmian  is  an  evi- 
dence of  a  great  effort  on  his  part  at  a  time  when  he  had  the 
Court  with  him  to  suppress  it.  We  have  just  seen  Basil  uniting 
with  the  Gallic  Bishops  against  it. 

6.  A.D.  359.  The  Confession  with  a  date, 
(third  Sirmian,  supr.  p.  83.) 

The  Semi-Arians,  with  the  hope  of  striking  a  further  blow  at 
their  opponents  by  a  judgment  against  the  Anomosans,  Soz.  iv.  16 
init.  seem  to  have  suggested  a  general  Council,  which  ultimately 
became  the  Councils  of  Seleucia  and  Ariminum.  If  this  was  their 
measure,  they  were  singularly  out-manoeuvred  by  the  party  of 
Acacius  and  Valens,  as  we  have  seen  in  Athanasius's  work.  A  pre- 
paratory Conference  was  held  at  Sirmium  at  the  end  of  May  in  this 
year ;  in  which  the  Creed  was  determined  which  should  be  laid 
before  the  great  Councils  which  were  assembling.  Basil  and  Mark 
were  the  chief  Semi-Arians  present,  and  in  the  event  became  com- 
mitted to  an  almost  Arian  Confession.  Soz.  iv.  16.  p.  562.  It  was 
finally  settled  on  the  Eve  of  Pentecost,  and  the  dispute  lasted  till 
morning.  Epiph.  Hser.  73.  22.  Mark  at  length  was  chosen  to 
draw  it  up,  Soz.  iv.  22.  p.  573.  yet  Valens  so  managed  that  Basil 
could  not  sign  it  without  an  explanation.  It  was  written  in 
Latin,  Socr.  ii.  30.  Soz.  iv.  17.  p.  563.  Coustant,  however,  in 
Hil.  p.  1152,  note  i,  seems  to  consider  this  dispute  and  Mark's 
confession  to  belong  to  the  same  date  (May  22,)  in  the  foregoing 
year;  but  p.  1363,  note  b,  to  change  his  opinion. 

Petavius,who,  Animadv.mEpiph.p.318,follows  Socratesin  con- 
sidering that  the  second  Sirmian  is  the  Confession  which  the  Arians 
tried  to  suppress,  nevertheless,  de  Trin.  i.  9-  §•  8.  yields  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Athanasius  in  behalf  of  the  third,  attributing  the  measure  to 
their  dissatisfaction  with  the  phrase  "  Like  in  all  things,"  which 
Constantius  had  inserted,  and  with  Basil's  explanation  on  sub- 
scribing it,  and  to  the  hopes  of  publishing  a  bolder  creed  which 
their  increasing  influence  with  Constantius  inspired.  He  does 

M  2 

164  Sirmian  Confessions. 

NOTE  not  think  it  impossible,  however,  that  an  attempt  was  made  to 
I.      suppress  both.     Constant,  again,  in  Hil.  p.  1363,  note  b,  asks  when 

c  °       it  could  be  that  the  Eusebians  attempted  to  suppress  the  second 

ARIM°  Confession;    and   conjectures   that   the  ridicule  which  followed 
AND'  their  dating  of  the  third  and  their  wish  to  get  rid  of  the  "  Like  in 

SELEU.  all  things,"  were  the  causes  of  their  anxiety  about  it.  He  observes 
~~  too  with  considerable  speciousness  that  Acacius's  second  formu- 
lary at  Seleucia  (Confession  ixth,  supr.  p.  123.)  and  the  Confession 
of  Nice  (xth,  supr.  p.  125.)  resemble  second  editions  of  the  third 
Sirmian.  Valesius  in  Socr.  ii.  30.  and  Montfaucon  in  Athan.  Syn. 
§.  29.  take  the  same  side. 

Pagi  in  Ann.  357 •  n.  13.  supposes  that  the  third  Sirmian  was 
the  Creed  signed  by  Liberius.  Yet  Constant,  in  Hil.  p.  1335, 
note  n,  speaking  of  Liberius's,  "  perfidia  Ariana,"  as  S.  Hilary  calls 
it,  says,  "  Solus  Valesius  existimat  tertiam  fconfessionem]  hie 
memorari:"  whereas  Valesius,  making  four,  not  to  say  five,  Sirmian 
Creeds,  understands  Liberius  to  have  signed,  not  the  third, 
but  an  intermediate  one,  between  the  second  and  third,  as  Peta- 
vius  does,  in  Soz.  iv.  15  and  16.  Moreover,  Pagi  fixes  the  date  as 
A.  D.  358.  ibid. 

This  Creed,  thus  drawn  up  by  a  Semi-Arian,  with  an  Acacian  or 
Arian  appendix,  then  a  Semi-Arian  insertion,  and  after  all  a  Semi- 
Arian  protest  on  subscription,  was  proposed  at  Seleucia  by 
Acacius,  Soz.  iv.  22.  and  at  Ariminum  by  Valens,  Socr.  ii.  37- 
p.  132. 

7.   A.D.  359.  Nicene  Edition  of  the  third  Sirmian, 
{Tenth  Confession,  supr.  p.  125.) 

The  third  Sirmian  was  rejected  both  at  Seleucia  and  Ariminum; 
but  the  Eusebians,  dissolving  the  Council  of  Seleucia,  kept  the 
Fathers  at  Ariminum  together  through  the  summer  and  autumn. 
Meanwhile  at  Nice  in  Thrace  they  confirmed  the  third  Sirmian, 
Socr.  ii.  37.  p.  141.  Theod.  Hist,  ii.  16.  with  the  additional 
proscription  of  the  word  hypostasis ;  apparently  lest  the  Latins 
should  by  means  of  it  evade  the  condemnation  of  the  "  One  in 
substance."  This  Creed,  thus  altered,  was  ultimately  accepted  at 
Ariminum;  and  was  confirmed  in  January  360  at  Constantinople; 
Socr.  ii.  41.  p.  153.  Soz.  iv.  24  init. 

Liberius  retrieved  his  fault  on  this  occasion ;  for,  whatever  was 
the  confession  he  had  signed,  he  now  refused  his  assent  to  the 
Ariminian,  and,  if  Socrates  is  to  be  trusted,  was  banished  in  con- 
sequence, Socr.  ii.  37.  p.  140. 

NOTE  on  Page  147. 

On  the  alleged  Confession  of  Antioch  against  Paul  of 

A  number  of  learned  writers  have  questioned  the  fact,  testified  NOTE 
by  three  Fathers,  S.  Athanasius,  S.  Basil,  and  S.  Hilary,  of  the     II. 
rejection  of  the  word  opoovruv  in  the  Antiochene  Council  against     ON 
Paul  between  A.D.  264—270.     It  must  be  confessed  that  both  S.    °^C< 
Athanasius  and  S.  Hilary  speak  from  the  statements  of  the  Semi-     AND  * 
arians,  without  having  seen  the  document  which  the  latter  had  SELEU. 
alleged,  while  S.  Basil  who  speaks  for  certain  lived  later.    It  must .. 
also  be  confessed,  that  S.  Hilary  differs  from  the  two  other  Fathers 
in  the  reason  he  gives  for  the  rejection  of  the  word.     There  is, 
however,  a  further  argument  urged  against  the  testimony  of  the 
three  Fathers  of  a  different  kind.     A  Creed,  containing  the  word, 
is  found  in  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  431,  purporting  to 
be  a  Definition  of  faith  ''of  the  Nicene  Council,  touching  the 
Incarnation,  and  an  Exposition  against  Paul  of  Samosata."     This 
Creed,  which,  (it  is  supposed,)  is  by  mistake  referred  to  the  Nicene 
Council,  is  admitted  as  genuine  by  Baronius,  J.  Forbes,  Instr.  Hist. 
Theol.  i.  4.  §.  1.  Le  Moyne,  Var.  Sacr.  t.  2.  p.  255.  Wormius,  Hist. 
Sabell.  p.  116—119.  (vicl.  Routh  Hell.  t.  2.  p.  523.)  Simon  de 
Magistris,  Praef.  ad  Dionys.  Alex.  p.  xl.  Feverlin.  Diss.  de  P.  Samos. 
§.  9.  Molkenbuhr,  Dissert.  Crit.  4.  Kern,  Disqu.  Hist.  Crit.  on  the 
subject;    Dr.  Burton  in  Faber's   Apostolicity  of  Trinitarianism, 
vol.  ii.  p.  302.  and  Mr.  Faber  himself.     As,  however,  I  cannot  but 
agree  with  the  President  of  Magdalen  1.  c.  that  the  Creed  is  of  a 
later  date,  (in  his  opinion,  post  lites  exortas  Nestorianas,)  or  at  least 
long  after  the  time  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  1  will  here  set  down  one 
or  two  peculiarities  in  it  which  make  me  think  so. 

The  Creed  is  found  in  Harduin  Concil.  t.  1.  p.  1640.  Routh, 
Rell.  t.  2.  p.  524.  Dionys.  Alex.  Oper.  Rom.  1696  [1796].  p.  289. 
Burton,  Testimonies,  p.  397 — 399-  Faber,  Trinitarianism,  vol.  2. 
p.  287. 

1.  Now  first,  the  Creed  in  question  has  these  words :  oAo»  ouoovrtov 
fata  Kott  (Air»  TOV  <r&>pxTO<;}  «AX'  ov^i  KXTO.  TO  (rupee,  opoovnov  r£)  hot.  Now 
to  enter  upon  the  use  of  the  word  opoovnov,  as  applied  to  the  Holy 
Trinity,  would  be  foreign  to  my  subject ;  and  to  refer  to  the 
testimony  of  the  three  Fathers,  would  be  assuming  the  point  at 
issue ;  but  still  there  are  other  external  considerations  besides, 
which  may  well  be  taken  into  account. 

(1)  And  first  the  Fathers  speak  of  it  as  a  new  term,  i.  e  in 
Creeds,  "  To  meet  the  irreligion  of  the  Arian  heretics,  the  Fathers 
framed  the  new  name  Homoiision."  August,  in  Joann.  97.  n.  4.  He 
says  that  it  was  misunderstood  at  Ariminum  "  propter  novitatem 
verbi."  contr.  Maxim,  ii.  3.  though  it  was  the  legitimate  "  off- 
spring of  the  ancient  faith."  Vigilius  also  says,  "  an  ancient 

166  A lleged  Confession  of  Ant ioch 

NOTE  subject  received  the  new  name  Homolision."  Disp.  Ath.  et  Ar.  t.  v. 
II.  p.  695.  (the  paging  wrong.)  Bibl.  P.  Col.  1618.  vid.  Le  Moyne. 
ON  Var.  Sacr.  1.  c. 

ARIM!'      (2)  ^ext  Sozornen  informs  us,  Hist.  iv.  15.  (as  we  have  seen 

AND  '  above,  p.  162.)  that  the  Creed  against  Paul  was  used  by  the  Semi- 

SELEU.  arians  at  Sirmium,  A.D.  358,  in  order  to  the  composition  of  the 

""Confession  which  Liberius  signed.     Certainly  then,  if  this  be  so, 

we  cannot  suspect  it  of  containing  the  opoovnov. 

(3)  Again,  we  have  the  evidence  of  the  Semi-arians  themselves  to 
the  same  point  in  the  documents  which  Epiphanius  has  preserved, 
Haer.  73.     They  there  appeal  to  the  Council  against  Paul  as  an 
authority  for  the  use  of  the  word  wri*,  and  thereby  to  justify  their 
own  opoiovnov;  which  they  would  hardly  have  done,  if  that  Council 
had  sanctioned  the  yutiHrw  as  well  as  ova-lot,.     But  moreover,  as  we 
have  seen,  supr.  p.  162.  the  last  Canon  of  their  Council  of  Ancyra 
actually  pronounced  anathema  upon  the  opoovnov ;  but  if  so,  with 
what  face  could  they  appeal  to  a  Council  which  made  profession 

of  it? 

(4)  And  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  Antiochene  Council 
having  suppressed  or  disowned  it;  on  the  contrary,  under  their 
circumstances  it  was  almost  to  be  expected.     The  Fathers  con- 
cerned in  the  first  proceedings  against  Paul,  Dionysius,  Gregory  of 
Neocaesarea,  Athenodorus,  and  perhaps  Firmilian,  were  immediate 
disciples  of  Origen,  who  is  known  to  have  been  very  jealous  of 
the  corporeal  ideas  concerning  the  Divine  Nature  which  Paul  (ac- 
cording to  Athanasius  and  Basil)  imputed  to  the  word  opoovriov. 
There  were  others  of  the  Fathers  who  are  known  to  have  used 
language  of  a  material  cast,  and  from  them  he  pointedly  differs. 
Tertullian  speaks  of  the  Divine  Substance  as  a  corpus,  in  Prax. 
7«  and  he  adopts  the  Valentinian  word  K^ofioXy),  as  Justin  had  used 
-x^ofiXy&lv  yMvpx,,  (vid.  supr.  p.  97,  note  h.)  whereas  Origen  in 
his  controversy  with  Candidus,  who  was  of  that  heresy,  condemns 
it ;  and  he  speaks  in  strong  language  against  the  work  of  Melito 
of  Sardis,  TT^I  ivrupdrov  6tov,  in  Genes.  Fragm.  t.  2.  p.  25.  whom  he 
accuses  of  teaching  it.    vid.  also  de  Orat.  23.     His  love  of  Pla- 
tonism  would  tend  the  same  way,  for  the  Platonists,  in  order  to 
mark  their  idea  of  the  perfection  and  simplicity  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  were  accustomed  to  consider  It  "above  substance." 

Thus  Plotinus  calls  the  Divine  Being  the  "  origin  of  being  and 
more  excellent  than  substance."  5  Ennead  v.  11.  and  says  that  He 
"  transcends  all,  and  is  the  cause  of  them,  but  is  not  they."  ibid, 
c.  ult.  The  views  of  physical  necessity  too,  which  the  material 
system  involved,  led  him  to  speak  of  His  energy  and  will  being 
His  substance.  6  Enn.  viii.  13.  And  hence  Origen;  "  Nor  doth 
God  partake  of  substance,  rather  He  is  partaken,  than  partakes." 
contr.  Cels.  vi.  64.  And  thus  the  word  VTC^OVTIOV  is  used  by 
Pseudo-Dion,  de  div.  nom.  i.  n.  2.  whose  Platonic  tone  of  thought 
is  well  known  ;  as  by  S.  Maximus,  "  Properly  substance  is  not 
predicated  of  God,  for  He  is  vTr&govirtog."  in  Pseudo-Dion,  de  div. 
nom.  v.  init.  Vid.  also  Dam.  F.  O.  i.  4.  and  8.  pp.  137-  147.  while 
S.  Greg.  Naz.  also  speaks  of  Him  as  VTT'^  rqv  ovriotv.  Orat.  6.  12. 

Nay  further,  in  Joann.  t.  20.  16.  Origen  goes  so  far  as  to  object 

against  Paul  of  Samosata. 


to  the  phrase  IK  ?%$  ovs-iot$  rov  TTXT^  yiytvvticr6ati   TOV   viov,   but  Still  NOTE 
assigning  the  reason  that  such  a  phrase  introduced  the  notion  of  a     II. 
s,  or  the  like  corporeal  notions,  into  our  idea  of  God. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,,  that  there  was  no  more  frequent 
charge    against    the    opjtovno*    in    the    mouths    of   the    Arians,     AND 
than  that  it  involved  the    Gnostic  and  Manichaean  doctrine  of SELEU. 
materiality  in  the  Divine  Nature,  vid.  supr.  p.  J  7,  note  1.  p.  63,  ~ 
note  h. 

Again  we  know  also  that  S.  Dionysius  did  at  first  decline  or  at 
least  shrink  from  the  word  opoovcnoy,  accepting  it  only  when  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  urged  it  upon  him.  But  an  additional  reason 
for  such  reluctance  is  found  in  the  rise  of  Manicheism  just  in  the 
time  of  these  Councils  against  Paul,  a  heresy  which  adopted  the 
word  ofttovnov  in  its  view  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
and  that  in  a  material  sense;  so  that  the  very  circumstances  of 
the  case  exactly  fall  in  with  and  bear  out  the  account  of  their 
rejection  of  the  word  given  by  the  two  Fathers. 

(5)  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  S.  Hilary's  reason  for  it  incon- 
sistent with  the  testimony  of  S.  Athanasius  and  S.  Basil.  Both 
accounts  may  be  true  at  once.  The  philosophical  sense  of  ovrloc,, 
as  we  have  seen,  supr.  p.  152,  note  a,  was  that  of  an  individual  or 
unit.  When  then  the  word  opoovwog  was  applied  to  the  Second  Per- 
son in  the  Blessed  Trinity,  or  He  was  said  to  be  of  one  sub  stance  with 
the  Father,  such  a  doctrine,  to  those  who  admitted  of  no  mystery 
in  the  subject,  involved  one  of  two  errors,  according  as  the  «tW« 
was  considered  a  spiritual  substance  or  a  material.  Either  it  implied 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  a  part  of  God,  or  p^o$  opoovo-iov,  which  was 
the  Manichrean  doctrine ;  or  if  the  wrl*  were  immaterial,  then,  since 
it  denoted  an  individual  being,  the  phrase  "  one  in  substance" 
involved  Sabellianism.  Paul  then  might  very  naturally  have  urged 
this  dilemma  upon  the  Council,  and  said,  "  Your  doctrine  implies 
the  ofitwirtiv.,  which  is  Manichaean,  unless  it  be  taken,  as  1  am 
willing  to  take  it,  in  a  Sabellian  sense."  And  thus  it  might  be  at 
once  true  as  Athanasius  says,  that  Paul  objected,  "  Unless  Christ 
has  of  man  become  God,  it  follows  that  He  is  One  in  substance 
with  the  Father;  and  if  so,  of  necessity  there  are  three  sub- 
stances, &c."  supr.  §.  45.  and  also,  according  to  Hilary's  testimony, 
"  Homoiision  Samosatenus  confessus  est ;  sed  nunquid  melius 
Ariani  negaverunt?"  de  Syn.  86. 

2,  The  Creed  also  says,  (MTU,  T«  0ioT»jTe$  av 

There  are  strong  reasons  for  saying  that  the  phrase  o 
is  of  a  date  far  later  than  the  Council  of  Antioch. 

(1)  Waterland  considers  the  omission  of  the  phrase  in  the 
Athanasian  Creed  as  an  argument  that  it  was  written  not  lower 
than  Eutychian  times,"  A.D.  451.  "A  tenet,"  he  observes  of  it, 
"  expressly  held  by  some  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  before 
Eutyches's  time,  but  seldom  or  never  omitted  in  the  Creeds  or 
Confessions  about  that  time,  or  after.  To  be  convinced,"  he 
proceeds,  "  of  the  truth  of  this  ....  article,  one  need  but  look 
into  the  Creeds  and  Formularies  of  those  times,  viz.  into  that  of 

168  Alleged  Confession  of  Ant  loch 

NOTE   Turribius  of  Spain  in  447,  of  Flavian  of  Constantinople,  as  also 

H-     of  Pope  Leo  in  449,  of  the  Chalcedon  Council  in  451,  of  Pope 

C  OINc  Felix  m  m  ^5,  and  Anastasius  II  in  496,  and  of  the  Church  of 

A  HIM.  Alexandria  in  the  same  year ;  as  also  into  those  of  Pope  Hormisdas, 

AND     and  the  Churches  of  Syria,  and  Fulgentius,  and  the  Emperor 

SELEU.  Justinian,  and  Pope  John  II,  and   Pope  Pelagius  I,  within  the 

~  Cth  century.     In  all  which  we  shall  find  either  express  denial  of 

one  nature,  or  express  affirmation  of  two  natures,  or  the  doctrine  of 

Christ's  consubslantiality  with  us,  or  all  three  together,  though  they 

arc  all  omitted  in  the  Athanasian  Creed."  vol.  iv.  p.  247. 

(2)  The  very  fact  of  Eutyches  denying  it  seems  to  shew  that 
the  phrase  was  not  familiar,  or  at  least  generally  received,  in  the 
Church  before.  "  Up  to  this  day,"  he  says  in  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  448,  "  I  have  never  said  that  the  Body  of 
our  Lord  and  God  was  consubstantial  with  us,  but  I  confess  that 
the  Holy  Virgin  was  consubstantial  with  us,  and  that  our  God 
was  incarnate  of  her."  Cone.  t.  2.  p,  164,  5.  The  point  at  issue, 
as  in  other  controversies,  seems  to  have  been  the  reception  or  re- 
jection of  a  phrase,  which  on  the  one  hand  was  as  yet  but  in  local 
or  private  use,  and  on  the  other  was  well  adapted  to  exclude  the 
nascent  heresy.  The  Eutychians  denied  in  like  manner  the  word 
<pvr<?,  which,  it  must  be  confessed,  was  seldom  used  till  their  date, 
when  the  doctrine  it  expressed  came  into  dispute.  And  so  of  the 
phrase  cpoovntv  tS  TTXT^I,  and  of  vTrotrreca-i? ;  vid.  Note,  supr.  p.  7L 

Now  the  phrase  "  consubstantial  with  us"  seems  to  have  been  in- 
troduced at  the  time  of  the  Apollinarian  controversy,  and  was  natu- 
rally the  Catholic  counter-statement  to  the  doctrine  of  Apollinaris 
that  Christ's  body  was ef  consubstantial  to  the  Godhead;"  a  doctrine 
which,  as  Athanasius  tells  us,  ad  Epict.  2.  was  new  to  the  world 
when  the  Apollinarians  brought  it  forward,  and,  according  to 
Epiphanius,  was  soon  abandoned  by  them,  Haer.  77,  25.  It  is 
natural  then  to  suppose  that  the  antagonist  phrase,  which  is  here  in 
question,  came  into  use  at  that  date,  and  continued  or  was  dropped 
according  to  the  prevalence  of  the  heretical  tenet.  Moreover  both 
sections  into  which  the  Apollinarians  soon  split,  seemed  to  have 
agreed  to  receive  the  phrase  "  consubstantial  with  us,"  and  only 
disputed  whether  it  continued  to  be  predicable  of  our  Lord's  body 
on  and  after  its  union  with  the  divine  Nature,  vid.  Leont.  de  fraud. 
Apollin.  and  this  of  course  would  be  an  additional  reason  against 
the  general  Catholic  adoption  of  the  phrase.  It  occurs  however 
in  the  Creed  of  John  of  Antioch,  A.D.  about  431,  on  which  8.  Cyril 
was  reconciled  to  him.  Rustic,  contr.  Aceph.  p.  799.  but  this  is 
only  twenty-one  years  before  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in  which 
the  phrase  was  formally  received,  as  the  opoowiov  ry  vary  was  re- 
ceived at  Nicsea.  ibid.  p.  805. 

The  counter-statement  more  commonly  used  by  the  orthodox  to 
that  of  the  flesh  being  opoovo-w  Otorwri,  was  not  "  consubstantial  with 
us,"  but  " consubstantial  with  Mary."  S.  Amphilochius  speaks  thus 
generally/'  It  is  plain  that  the  holy  Fathers  said  that  the  Son  was 
consubstantial  with  His  Father  according  to  the  Godhead  and  con- 
substantial  with  His  Mother  according  to  the  manhood."  apud.  Phot. 
Bibl.  p.  789.  Proclus,  A.D.  434,  uses  the  word  iuAQvto*,  and  still 

against  Paul  of  Samosata.  169 

with  "  the  Virgin."  TW  TTCCT^  Kara  TW  Otorvrot  opoov<ru$,  ovrag  a  ccvrog  x.cti   NOTE 
TJJ  grog&tf  xxroi  rt)v  a-d^icoc  opo$vXo$.  ad  Arm.  p.  6l  8.  circ.  init.  vid.  also      II. 
p.  613  fin.  p.  618.  He  uses  the  word  opoovtriov  frequently  of  the  Divine 
Nature  as  above,  yet  this  does  not  suggest  the  other  use  of  it.   An- 
other  term  is  used  by  Athanasius,  TOP  wapwov  Tretr^t  KCHTO,  Trvwpct,  ifttv    AND 
21  x.x,ra,  troi^ot.  apud  Theod.  Eranist.  ii.  p.  139-      Or  again  that  He  SELEU. 
took  flesh  of  Mary,  e.g.  *vx  Ix.  Manias  #AA'  Ix,  rn$  IXVTOV  ov<rt'ct$  rap*.  ~ 
ad    Epict.  2.     Or  riteiog   avfyaTrog,  e.  g.   Procl.  ad  Arm.  p.  613. 
which,  though  Apollinaris  denied,  Eutyches  allowed,  Concil.  t.  2. 
p.  157.  Leon.  Ep.  21. 

However,  S.  Eustathius  (A.D.  325.)  says  that  our  Lord's 
soul  was  ToCis  •^vfcctig  rav  ctvfycaKuv  oftoovwos,  eta-Trig  KCCI  «  <ra,(fe  opoov<rio$ 
T»J  ray  dvfyayrav  <rapc.i.  ap.  Theod.  Eranist.  i.  p.  56.  vid.  also  Leon. 
contr.  Nestor,  et  Eutych.  p.  977-  and  S.  Ambrose,  ibid.  Dial.  ii. 

p.    139-   OftOOVrtOV    Tft>     TTOiT^l   XOtTCC     TW     QtOTYlTX,  KSil    OfCOOVrlOV  $1*1?   XOCTOt    T«V 

avfyuKorvTot,  but  the  genuineness  of  the  whole  extract  is  extremely 
doubtful,  as  indeed  the  Benedictines  almost  grant,  t.  2.  p.  729. 
Waterland,  Athan.  Creed,  ch.  7-  p.  264.  seems  to  think  the  internal 
evidence  strong  against  its  genuineness,  but  yields  to  the  ex- 
ternal; and  Coustant.  App.  Epist.  Pont.  Rom.  p.  79.  considers 
Leontius  a  different  author  from  the  Leontius  de  Sectis.,  on 
account  of  his  mistakes.  Another  instance  is  found  in  Theophilus 
ap.  Theod.  Eranist.  ii.  p.  154. 

This  contrast  becomes  stronger  still  when  we  turn  to  documents 
of  the  alleged  date  of  the  Confession.  A  letter  of  one  of  the 
Councils  263  —  270,  or  of  some  of  its  Bishops,  is  still  extant,  and 
exhibits  a  very  different  phraseology.  Instead  of  opoounos  tjptv  we 
find  the  vaguer  expressions,  not  unlike  Athanasius,  &c.  of  the  Son 
"  being  made  flesh  and  made  man,"  and  "  the  Body  from  the 
Virgin,"  and  "  man  of  the  seed  of  David,"  and  "  partaking  of  flesh 
and  blood."  Routh  Rell.  t.  2.  p.  473.  And  the  use  of  the  word  «t/V/« 
is  different;  and  its  derivatives  are  taken  to  convey  the  idea,  neither 
of  the  divine  nature  of  our  Lord  nor  the  human,  but  of  the  divine 
nature  substantiated  or  become  a  substance,  in  the  material  world  ; 
almost  as  if  under  the  feeling  that  God  in  Himself  is  above  sub- 
stance, as  I  had  just  now  occasion  to  mention.  E.  g.  Pseudo- 

DionysillS  asks  Trag  o  VTrlgovoioz    Iqrovf  ctv&(>M7ro(pvioci$ 

Myst.  Theol.  iii.  vid.  also  de  Div.  Nom.  r.  2.  and  Epist.  4. 
Hence  Africanus  says,  ovriecv  O'AJJV  oiwafais,  a,v6(>u7ro<;  teyircu. 
African.  Chron.  ap.  Routh  t.  2.  p.  125.  In  like  manner  the 
Antiochene  Fathers  insist,  xccfo  Xg«rroj,  iv  x.a.1  TO  aw  «\  TJJ  ovo-ix. 
Routh  Rel.  t.  2.  p.  474.  and  Malchion  at  the  same  Council 
accuses  Paul  of  not  admitting  cv<ria><r6cti  iv  TU  oA«  o-urvgi  TO»  viov 
101  povoytv*.  ibid.  p.  476.  or  that  the  Son  was  "  substantially 
present  in  the  whole  Saviour."  vid.  also  p.  485.  In  all  these  pas- 
sages ovo-iee.  is  used  for  nothing  else  than  substance,  whereas  in  the 
phrase  opoovno*  iftiv  it  rather  stands  for  <pv<r^  or  ywoq.  And  so 
much  was  the  former  its  meaning  in  the  earlier  times  that  Hip- 
polytus  plainly  denies  that  men  are  one  substance  one  with 
another;  for  he  asks,  ^CH  TrdvTis  sv  trapoi  i<rp,iv  X.OCTOI  ?w  otWflt»;  contr. 
Noet.  7.  And  this  moreover  altogether  agrees  with  what  was 
said  above,  that  in  Paul's  argument  against  the  opoovrtov  Tcary  the 

170  Alleged  Confession  of  Ant  lock 

NOTE  word  «v<rU  was  taken  (and  rightly)  in  what  Aristotle  as  Anastasius, 
II.  Hodeg.  6.  p.  96.  and  Theorian  Leg.  p.  441 .  after  him,  assigns  as  the 
ON  proper  sense  of  the  word,  viz.  an  individual,  and  not  a  common 

COUNC  nature. 


SELEU.      3.  The  Creed  also  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  Vv  irgce-»7rov  <rvv6trov 
"       IK  fooT»)To$  ov^otiiov  xat  £»ffW*W*|  <ret^x,og. 

Now  the  word  crvvdtrov,  in  the  Latin  composilum,  is  found  in  the 
fragment  of  Malchion's  disputation  in  the  Council.  Routh  Rell. 
t.  2.  p.  476.  But  Ti^oo-uTfov  and  <rvv6tTov  iraoru-Trov  seem  to  me  of  a 
later  date. 

The  word  persona,  applied  to  our  Lord  in  His  two  natures  and 
in  contrast  with  them,  is  to  be  found  in  Tertull.  contr.  Prax.  27. 
Though,  however,  it  was  not  absolutely  unknown  to  ecclesiastical 
authors,  this  is  a  very  rare  instance  of  its  early  occurrence. 

We  also  find  Novatian  de  Trin.  21.  speaking  of  the  "regula 
circa  Personam  Christi ;"  and  considering  his  great  resemblance  to 
Tertullian,  it  may  be  supposed  that  persona  here  denotes,  not 
merely  our  Lord's  subsistence  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  but  in  His 
two  natures.  But  on  the  other  hand,  he  uses  Christus  absolutely 
for  the  Second  Person  all  through  his  Treatise,  e.g.  9  init.  "  Regula 
veritatis  docetnos  credere  post  patrem  etiam  in  Filium  Dei  Christum 
Jesum,  Dominum  Deum  nostrum,  sed  Dei  filium,  &c."  .Again, 
"  Christus  habet  gloriam  ante  mundi  institutionem.  16.  vid.  also 
13.  where  he  speaks  of  Christ  being  made  flesh,  as  if  the  name 
were  synonymous  with  "Word"  in  the  text,  John  1,  14.  And, 
moreover,  subsequently  to  "persona  Christi, "he  goes  on  to  speak 
of  "  secundam  personam  post  Patrem."  26  and  31.  vid.  also  27. 

However,  in  spite  of  these  instances,  one  might  seem  to  say 
confidently,  if  a  negative  can  be  proved,  that  it  was  not  in 
common  use  at  soonest  before  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century, 
and  perhaps  not  till  much  later. 

(1.)  I  have  not  discovered  it  in  S.  Athanasius's  treatises  against 
Apollinarianism,  which  were  written  about  370,  except  in  two 
places,  which  shall  be  spoken  of  presently.  Nor  in  S.  Gregory 
Naz.'s  Ep.  202.  acl  Nectar,  and  Ep.  101.  102.  ad  Cledon.  Nor  in 
8.  Gregory  Nyssen.  Fragm.  in  Apollinarem.  Nor  in  Theodoret's 
Eranistes,  except  in  one  place,  in  a  Testimony,  given  to  S.  Ambrose, 
and  which  has  already  been  mentioned  as  probably  spurious.  Nor 
is  it  found  in  the  Creed  of  Damasus,  by  whom  Apollinaris  was 
condemned,  vid.  Epp  2  and  3  ;  nor  among  the  testimonies  of  the 
Fathers  cited  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus;  nor  in  Epiphanius's 
Creed,  Ancor.  121.  vid.  also  75. 

(2.)  It  is  not  used  in  passages  where  it  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, but  other  modes  of  speech  are  usual  instead  ;  and  that  by 
a  sort  of  rule,  so  as  to  make  them  almost  technical,  or  with  such 
variety  of  expression  as  pointedly  to  mark  the  omission  ;  e.  g. 
for  "^two  natures  and  one  Person"  we  always  find  ovx.  «AAo,  a^o, — 

«<«, — Vv, — o  etvros.  &C.  &C. 

S.  Irenaeus: — Non  ergoalterum  filium  hominisnovitEvangelium., 
nisi  hunc  qui  ex  Maria,  &c.  et  eundem  hunc  passum  resurrex- 
isse  .  .  .  Etsi  lingu£  quiclem  confitentur  unum  Jesum  Christum, 

inxt  Paul  of  Samosata.  171 

.  .  .  allerum  quidem  passum,  et  natum,  £c.  et  esse  alterum  eorum,  NOTE 
&c.  Haer.  iii.  16.  n.  5.  6.  unus  quidem  et  idem  existens,  n.  7.  per      H. 
multa  diviclens  Filium  Dei.  n.  8.  unnm  et  eundem,  ibid.     Si  alter     ON 
.  .  .  alter,  .  .  .  quoniam  unum  eum  novit  Apostolus,  &c.  n.  9-     The  ^^' 
passage  upon  the  subject  is  extended  to  c.  xxiv.  AND 

S.    Ambrose:  —  Unus    in    utraque    Qdivinitate    et    carne]    lo-  SELEU. 
quitur  Dei  Filius  ;  quia  in  eodem  utraque  riatura  est  ;    et  si  idem  ~~ 
loquitur,  non  uno  semper  loquitur  modo.  de  fid.  ii.  9.  vid.  58. 
Non  divisus  sed  unus  ;  quia  utrumque  unus,  et  unus  in  utroque  .  .  . 
non  enim  alter  ex  Patre,  alter  ex  Virgine,  sed  idem  aliter  ex  Pater, 
aliter  ex  Virgine,  de  Incarn.  35.  vid.  47.  75.  and  Non  enim  quod 
ejusdem  substantiae  est,  unus,  sed  unum  est,   77.  where  persona 
follows  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 

S.  Hilary  :  —  Non  alms  filins  hominis  quam  qui  films  Dei  est 
neque  alius  in  forma  Dei  quam  qui  in  forma  servi  perfectus  homo 
natus  est;  ....  habens  in  se  et  totum  verumque  quod  homo  est,  et 
totum  verumque  quod  Deus  est.  de  Trin.  x.  19.  Cum  ipse  ille 
filius  hominis  ipse  sit  qui  et  films  Dei,  quia  totus  hominis  filius 
totus  Dei  filius  sit,  &c.  .  .  .  Natus  autem  est,  non  ut  esset  alius 
atqite  alius,  sed  ut  ante  hominem  Deus,  sucipiens  hominem, 
homo  et  Deus  possit  intelligi.  ibid.  22.  Non  potest  .  .  .  ita  ab  se 
dividuus  esse,  ne  Christus  sit  ;  cum  non  alius  Christus,  quam  qui 
in  forma  Dei,  &c.  neque  alius  quam  qui  natus  est,  &c.  .  .  .  neque  alius 
quam  qui  est  mortuus,  &c  in  coelis  autem  non  alius  sit  quam  qui 
&c.  ibid,  ut  non  idem  fuerit  (/ui  et.  &c.  ibid.  50.  Totum  ei  Deus 
Verb  urn  est,  totum  ei  homo  Christus  est,  .  .  .  nee  Christum  aliud 
credere  quam  Jesum,  nee  Jesum  aliud  praedicare  quam  Christum. 

And  in  like  manner  S.  Athanasius  :  —  #AAo$,  a,xxo$-  zrtoog, 
wj  x,ott  eti>iof  TxvToy  tt3ucjpT»9<  Orat.  iv.    §.  15  and  29-  «AAo?,  et 
§.  30.  g'vas   KXI  *rov   OIVTOV.   §.31.  cv%  as   rov  Ao'yov  Wfca^urfAtvov.  ibid,  roy 

7r£«;  CX.VTOV  hytp'.vTX,  a  x-ott  -/ivca<rx,i  TrurT&vlTcii,  tAv^wjfov  U.TT  ctvrov  xwptovirt. 

ibid.    TVV   Ct,l>':X.<P^al7[-TC/1   fMWjy,     §.     32.    TO    6tl6V    V»    KXt    OtTT^OVV    fAVTT^plOV.    ibid. 

TJJV  ivaT»Tos.  ibid.  isAev  eti/Tov  a,v&^u7rov  TE  Kotf  6iov  Ojitoy.  §.  35.  vid.  espe- 
cially the  long  discussion  in  Orat.  iii.  §.  30  —  58.  where  there  is 
hardly  a  technical  term. 

Other  instances  of  ecclesiastical  language  are  as  follows:  — 
Medium  inter  Deum  ethominum  substantiam  gerens.  Lactant.  Instit 
iv.  13.  teas  x.eci  xvfy&iTTos  rzteios  o  xvTo$.  MelitoH.  apud  Routh,  Rell. 
i.  p.  115.  ex  eo  quod  Deus  est,  et  ex  illo  quod  homo  .  .  .  permixtus 
et  sociatus  .  .  .  alterum  vident,  alterum  non  vident.  Novat.  de  Trin. 
25.  vid.  also  11,  14,  21,  and  24.  duos  Christos  .  .  .  unum,  alium. 
Pamphil.  Apol.  ap.  Routh,  Rell.  t.  4.  p.  320.  0  xvrog  l<m»  uii  7rgo$ 
iccvrov  aa-oi.vTcag  'i^av  Greg.  Nyss.  t.  2.  p.  696.  trot  x.a.1  rev  xvrov.  Greg. 

Naz.  Ep.  101.  p.  85.  CJAAO  piv  *.»}  ^AAe  to,  l| 

^l  xai  ceAAo;.   p.  86. 

Vid.  also  Athan.  contr.  Apollin.  i.  10  fin  11.  fin.  13,  e.  16.  b.  ii. 
1  init.  5.  e.  12.  e.  18.  circ.  fin.     Theoph.  apud  Theod.  Eranist.  ii. 

p.  154.  Hilar.  ibid.  p.  162.  Attic,  ibid.  p.  167.  Jerom.  in  Joan. 
leros.  35. 

A  corresponding  phraseology  and  omission  of  the  term  "  per- 
son" is  found  in  the  undoubted  Epistle  of  the  Antiochetie  Fathers; 

172  Alleged  Confession  of  Ant  loch 

NOTE    TO  IK  T?$  7ret(>6ivov  rapa  ^a^crenv  nav  TO   itKfiQUfjut  T%$  Qtorqro/; 
II.      rr,  OtoryTt  ctrptTrras  qvaTati  x.xt   TtdtOTroiwreti'    ov  %oigiv  a  eivrbs   6tbs  K.OCI  a,v- 
ON       6^V7T6<;   x.  T.  A.    Routh,    Rell.   t.   2.  p.  473.   ovru   KOU  a  X£«TTO$   wgo   T«$ 

~5>UNC>  o-i«^X(!y<7-e6>j  #5  its  avop/xa-Toit.   xa6o  X^nrrot  Vv  ?c#<  TO  «0ra  <wv  TJ?  evtrtet.  ibid. 
AND    P-  474.  ti  tfAAo  ^v  .  .  «AAo  £g  .  .  .  ^vo  t>/ov?.  ibid.  p.  485.     And  so 

SELEU.  Malchion,  Unus  factus  est  .  .  .  unitate  subsistens,  &c.  ibid.  p.  476. 

(3)  It  is  indisputable  too  that  the  word  TF^TUTTOI  is  from  time 

to  time  used  of  our  Lord  by  the  early  writers  in  its  ordinary 

vague  sense,  which  is  inconceivable  if  it  were  already  received 

in  creeds  as  an  ecclesiastical  symbol. 

E.  g.  S.  Clement  calls  the  Son  the  "  person"  or  countenance, 
wgoVwsrov,  "  of  the  Father."  Strom,  v.  6.  p.  665.  and  Psedag.  i.  7. 
p.  132.  vid.  also  Strom,  vii.  10.  p.  886.  And  so  lv  ir^a-airy  -xt&tfa, 
Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  22.  (vid.  supr.  p.  114,  note  d.)  and  even  Cyril 
Alex.  Dial.  v.  p.  554.  Vid. also Cyril.Catech.  xii.  14fin.  o 
C hry sostom  speaks  of  2vo  7r£o<r*7rct,  i.  e.  human  and  divine, 
T«V  V7ro<r7et<riv,  in  Hebr.  Horn.  iii.  1  fin.  where  too  he  has  just  been 
speaking  against  Paul  of  Samosata,  against  whom  the  Creed  which 
we  are  examining  is  alleged  to  have  been  written,  vid.  also  Am  phi- 
loch,  ap.  Theod.  Eranist.  i.  p.  67.  who  speaks  of  Christ  as  saying, 
"  My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  "  from  the  flesh  and  not  l»  Trgoe-wVov 
TK  6toTVTog."  In  these  passages  TT^OG-UTTCV  seems  to  stand  for  character, 
as  is  not  unusual  in  Athanasius,  vid.  supr.  p.  22,  note  z,  where 
instances  are  given.  And  thus  I  would  explain  those  passages 
referred  to  just  above,  in  which  he  seems  to  use  Trgoo-uTrov  for 
person,  in  Apoll.  ii.  2  and  10.  viz.  lv  Itxi^nt  Tr^a-ajruv,  which  Le 
Quien  (in  Damasc.  dialect.  43.)  most  unnecessarily  calls  an  instance, 
and  as  he  thinks  solitary,  of  ^OT-MTTOV  being  used  for  nature,  though 
Athan.  in  one  of  the  two  passages  explains  the  word  himself,  speak- 
ing of  K^truTTuv  jj  ovopdvuv.  And  this  seems  a  truer  explanation,  though 
perhaps  less  natural,  than  to  render  it  (supr.  p.  22.)  "  not  as  if  there 
were  division  of  persons."  These  passages  of  Athan.  might  make  us 
less  decisive  than  Montfaucon  as  to  the  internal  evidence  against 
the  fragment  given  in  t.  i.  p.  1294.  He  says,  after  Sirmond  in 
Facund.  xi.  2.  that  it  contains  a  doctrine  "  ab  Athanasian&  penitus 
abhorrentem;"  and  this,  because  the  Latin  version,  (another 
reason,  but  of  a  different  kind,  why  it  is  difficult  to  judge  of  it,) 
speaks  broadly  of  "  duas  personas,  unam  circa  hominem,  alteram 
circa  Verbum."  But  besides  the  above  instances,  we  find  the  same 
use  in  an  extract  from  a  work  of  Hippolytus  preserved  by  Leontius, 
Hippol.  t.  2.  p.  45.  where  he  speaks  of  Christ  as  2vo  K^XTUKW*  MTITW, 
God  and  men. 

Again  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  utriusque  naturae  personam.  de  Trin. 
ix.  14.  ejus  hominis  quam  assumpsit  persona,  in  Psalm  63.  n.  3. 
vid.  also  in  Psalm  138.  n.  5.  and  S.  Ambrose,  in  persona  hominis. 
de  Fid.  ii.  n.  6l.  v.  n.  108.  124.  Ep.  48.  n.  4.  From  a  passage 
quoted  from  Paschasius  Diaconus,  de  Spir.  §.  ii.  4.  p.  194.  by 
Petavius  (de  Trin.  iv.  4.  §.  3.)  it  seems  that  the  use  of  the  word 
persona  in  the  sense  of  quality  or  state  had  not  ceased  even  in  the 
6th  century. 

Further,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  vague  use  of  the  word  "  per- 
son," as  used  in  speaking  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  which  S.  Theo- 

against  Paul  of  Samosata.  173 

philus  and  S.  Clement  above  exemplify,  on  the  whole  ceased  with  NOTE 
the  rise   of  the  Sabellian  controversy  and  the  adoption  of  the      II. 
word,  (as  in  Hippol.  contr.  Noet.  14.)  as  a  symbol  against  the     ON 
heresy.     It   is   natural  in  like   manner  that  till  the  great  con-  COUNC. 
troversy    concerning  the   Incarnation  which  Apollinaris   began,      *™' 
a   similar    indistinctness  should  prevail  in  its  use   relatively   to  SELEU. 
that  doctrine. 

And  hence  S.  Cyril  in  his  4th  anathema  is  obliged  to  explain  the 
word  by  the  more  accurately  defined  term  hypostasis  :  ti  TI$  TT^OO-- 
etTroig  $vo-t,  vyovv  vTroerTcto-iri,  K.  r.  A.  Vid.  also  the  caution  or  protest  of 
Vincentius  Lirens.  Comm.  14. 

(4)  Moreover,  a  contrast  is  observable  between  the  later 
accounts  or  interpretations  of  early  writings,  and  those  writings 
themselves  as  far  as  we  have  them  ;  words  and  phrases  being 
imputed,  which  in  the  originals  exist  only  in  the  ideas  themselves 
intended  by  them. 

E.g.  Ephrem  of  Antioch  reports  that  S.  Peter  of  Alexandria, 
S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Basil,  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  &c.  acknow- 
ledge the  doctrine  of  "  the  union  of  two  natures  and  one 
Subsistence  and  one  Person."  ap.  Phot.  cod.  229-  p.  805  —  7-  but 
Chrysostom,  &c.  uses  the  words  and  phrases,  stung,  rwdquct,,  e»  o  630? 
Xoyos  KUI  »  rd£  ;  Nazianzen  is  silent  about  persona  in  his  Ep.  ad 
Cledon.  to  which  Ephrem  there  refers,  and  Peter  in  all  that 
remains  of  him  uses  such  words  as  <r«| 


Qvtru.  Routh  Rell.  t.  3.  p.  344—346. 

Again,  let  it  be  observed  how  S.  Maximus  comments  upon 
S.  Gregory  Nazianzen  's  words  in  the  following  passage  :  "  The 
great  Gregory  Theologus  seems  to  me  thus  to  teach  in  his  great 
Apologetic,  '  One,  llv,  out  of  both,  and  both  through  One,'  as  if  he 
mould  say,  for  as  there  is  one  out  of  both,  thai  is,  of  two  natures, 
One  as  a  whole  from  parts  according  to  the  definition  of  hypostasis, 
so,"  &c.  t.  2.  p.  282. 

Instances  of  this  kind,  which  are  not  unfrequent,  make  one 
suspicious  of  such  passages  of  the  Fathers  as  come  to  us  in 
translation,  as  Theodoret's  and  Leontius's  extract  from  S.  Ambrose, 
of  which  notice  has  been  taken  above  ;  especially  as  the  common 
Latin  versions  in  the  current  editions  of  the  Greek  Fathers  offer 
parallel  instances  of  the  insertion  of  the  words  persona,  &c.  not  in 
the  original,  merely  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity. 

(5)  It  might  be  shewn  too  that  according  as  alleged  works  of 
the  Fathers  are  spurious  or  suspected,  so  does  persona  appear  as 
one  of  their  theological  terms.  The  passage  of  S.  Ambrose  above 
cited  is  in  point  ;  but  it  would  carry  us  too  far  from  the  subject  to 
illustrate  this  as  fully  as  might  be  done;  nor  is  it  necessary. 
Another  specimen,  however,  may  be  taken  from  S.  Athanasius.  The 
absence  of  ^rgocr&cirov  from  his  acknowledged  works  has  already  been 
noticed  ;  but  let  us  turn  to  the  fragments  at  the  end  of  vol.  1.  of 
the  Benedictine  edition.  E.  g.  p.  1279  is  a  fragment  which 
Montfaucon  says  olet  quidpiam  peregrinum,  et  videtur  maxime 
sub  finem  Eutychianorum  hteresin  impugnare  ;  it  contains  the 
word  TT^ruxov.  And  a  third  is  the  letter  to  Dionysius  falsely 

174  Alleged  Confession  of  Ant  loch 

N  OTE  ascribed  to  Pope  Julius,  in  which  as  before  »•$•«•«»•«  occurs,  n.  2. 
II.  Coust.  Ep.  Pont.  Rom.  Append,  p.  62.  And  for  a  fourth  we 
ON  may  refer  to  the  wOtr*  TK  KXTM  ^0$  7nWs«?  ascribed  to  S.  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  one  of  the  Antiochene  Fathers,  but  which  accord- 
ing  to  Eulogius  ap.  Phot.  cod.  230.  p.  846.  is  an  Apollinarian 
SELEU. forgery;  it  too  uses  the  word  "  persona"  of  the  union  of  natures 
~~  in  our  Lord.  And  for  a  fifth  to  the  Serm.  in  S.  Thomam,  which 
is  quoted  by  the  6th  General  Council  as  S.  Chrysostom's,  but 
which  Montfaucon  and  his  other  Editors  consider  spurious,  and 
Tillemont  considers  preached  at  Edessa,  A.D.  402.  It  contains  the 
word  Tr^owTov.  Ed.  Ben.  torn.  8.  part  2.  p.  34. 

(6.)  Too  many  words  would  have  been  spent  on  this  point,  were 
it  not  for  the  eminent  writers  who  have  maintained  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Creed  in  question  ;  and  in  particular,  were  it  not  for 
the  circumstance,  which  is  at  first  sight  of  great  cogency,  that 
Tertullian,  whose  acquaintance  with  Greek  theology  is  well 
known,  not  only  contains  in  his  contr.  Prax.  a  fully  developed 
statement  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  but 
uses  the  very  word  persona  or  TrgoruTrov  which  has  here  been 
urged  in  disproof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Creed  under  con- 

Such  passages  shall  here  be  subjoined  as  contain  the  word  in 
its  ecclesiastical  sense,  as  far  as  I  have  met  with  them. 

In  the  extracts  of  the  letters  of  Apollinaris  and  his  disciples 
who  wrote  against  each  other  (A.D.  380.)  the  word  occurs  ap. 
Leont.  p.  1033.  b.  p.  1037.  b.  p.  1039-  b.  as  well  as  the  opoovnov 
ipf*  as  noticed  above. 

Also  in  an  extract  of  Apollinaris,  ap.  Theod.  Eranist.  ii.  p.  173. 

By  an  auctor  against  the  Arians  whom  Sirmond  called  anti- 
quissimus.  Opp.  t.  i.  p.  223. 

By  S.  Athanasius,  that  is,  as  quoted  by  Euthymius.  ap.  Petav. 
Incarn.  iii.  15,  note  19. 

By  S.  Gregory  Nyss.  ap.  Damasc.  contr.  Jacob,  t.  i.  p.  424. 

By  S.  Amphilochius,  ap.  Damasc.  ibid,  et  ap.  Anast,  Hod. 
10.  p.  162.  and  ap.  Ephrem.  ap.  Phot.  p.  828. 

In  a  Greek  Version  of  S.  Ambrose,  ap.  Phot.  p.  805. 

By  S.  Chrysostom,  Ep.  ad  Caesar,  fin. 

By  Isidore  Pelus,  p.  94.  Epist.  i.  360. 

In  Pelagius's  Creed,  A.D.  418.  in  S.  August.  Opp.  t.  12.  p.  210. 

By  S.  Augustine,  contr.  Serm.  Arian.  8.  Ep.  ad  Volusian.  137- 
n.  1 1 .  de  Corr.  et  Grat.  30. 

By  Proclus  ad  Armen.  p.  6l3. 

After  the  third  General  Council,  A.D.  431,  of  course  the  word 
becomes  common. 

(7.)  It  may  be  objected,  that  Paul  of  Samosata  himself  main- 
tained a  Nestorian  doctrine,  and  that  this  would  naturally  lead  to 
the  adoption  of  the  word  TrfauTftv  to  represent  our  Lord's  unity 
in  His  two  natures,  as  it  had  already  been  adopted  60  years 
before  by  Hippolytus  to  denote  His  Divine  subsistence  against 
Noetus.  But  there  is  no  good  evidence  of  Paul's  doctrine  being 
of  this  nature,  though  it  seems  to  have  tended  to  Nestorianism 
in  his  followers.  1  allude  to  a  passage  in  Athan.  Orat.  iv.  §.  30. 

against  Paul  of  Samosata.  175 

Where  he  says,  that  some  of  the  Samosatenes  so  interpreted  Acts  x.  NOTE 
36,  as   if  the  Word  was  sent  to  "  preach  peace  through  Jesus     H. 
Christ."     As  far  as  the  fragments  of  the  Antiochene  Acts  state  or  c  ONT 
imply,  he  taught  more  or  less,  as  follows: — that  the  Son's  pre-exist-  A  RIM.' 
ence  was  only  in  the  divine  foreknowledge,  Routh  Rell.  t.  2.  p.  466.     AND 
that  to  hold  His  substantial  pre-existence  was  to  hold  two  Gods,  SELEU. 
ibid.  p.  467.  that  He  was,  if  not  an  instrument,  an  impersonal  ~~ 
attribute,  p.  469.  that  His  manhood  was  not  "  unalterably  made 
one  with  the  Godhead,"  p.  473.  "  that  the  Word  and  Christ  were 
not  one  and  the  same,"  p.  474.  that  Wisdom  was  in  Christ  as  in 
the  prophets,  only  more  abundantly,  as  in  a  temple ;    that  He 
who  appeared  was  not  Wisdom,  p.  475.  in  a  word  as  it  is  sum- 
med up,  p.  484.  that    "  W7isdom  was  born  with  the  manhood, 
not  substantially,  but  according  to  quality."  vid.  also  p.  476.  485. 
All  this  plainly  shews  that  he  held  that  our  Lord's  personality  was 
in  His  Manhood,  but  does  not  shew  that  he  held  a  second  per- 
sonality in  His  godhead;  rather  he  considered  the  Word  imper- 
sonal, though  the  Fathers  in  Council  urge  upon  him  that  he  ought 
to  hold  two  Sons,  one  from  eternity,  and  one  in  time,  p.  485. 

Accordingly  the  Synodal  Letter  after  his  deposition  speaks  of 
him  as  holding  that  Christ  came  not  from  Heaven,  but  from 
beneath.  Euseb.  Hist.  vii.  30.  S.  Athanasius's  account  of  his 
doctrine  is  altogether  in  accordance,  (vid.  supr.  p.  1 6,  note  i.)  that 
Paul  taught  that  our  Lord  was  a  mere  man,  and  that  He  was 
advanced  to  His  divine  power,  IK  TT^OCOTT^. 

However,  since  there  was  a  great  correspondence  between  Paul 
and  Nestorius,  (except  in  the  doctrine  of  the  personality  and 
eternity  of  the  Word,  which  the  Arian  controversy  determined 
and  the  latter  held,)  it  was  not  unnatural  that  reference  should  be 
made  to  the  previous  heresy  of  Paul  and  its  condemnation  when 
that  of  Nestorius  was  on  trial.  Yet  the  Contestatio  against  Nestorius 
which  commences  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  Harduin. 
Cone.  t.  i.  p.  1272.  and  which  draws  out  distinctly  the  parallel 
between  them,  says  nothing  to  shew  that  Paul  held  a  double  per- 
sonality. And  though  Anastasius  tells  us,  Hodeg.  c.  7.  p.  108.  that 
the  "holy  Ephesian  Council  shewed  that  the  tenets  of  Nestorius 
agreed  with  the  doctrine  of  Paul  of  Samosata,"  yet  in  c.  20. 
p.  323,  4.  he  shews  us  what  he  means  by  saying  that  Artemon 
also  before  Paul  "  divided  Christ  in  two."  Ephrem  of  Antioch 
too  says  that  Paul  held  that  "  the  Son  before  ages  was  one,  and 
the  Son  in  the  last  time  another."  ap.  Phot.  p.  814.  but  he  seems 
only  referring  to  the  words  of  the  Antiochene  Acts,  quoted  above. 
Again,  it  is  plain  from  what  Vigilius  says  in  Eutych.  t.  v.  p.  731. 
Ed.  Col.  161 8.  (the  passage  is  omitted  in  Ed.  Par.  1624.)  that 
the  Eutychians  considered  that  Paul  and  Nestorius  differed;  the 
former  holding  that  our  Lord  was  a  mere  man,  the  latter  a  mere 
man  only  till  He  was  united  to  the  Word.  And  Marius  Mercator 
says,  "  Nestorius  circa  Verbum  Dei,  non  ut  Paulus  sentit,  qui  non 
substaritivum,  sed  prolatitium  potentiae  Dei  efficax  Verbum  esse 
definit."  p.  50.  Ibas,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  though  more 
suspicious  witnesses,  say  the  same,  vid.  Facund.  vi.  3.  iii.  2.  and 
Leontius  de  Sectis,  iii.  p.  504. 

176   Alleged  Confession  of  Anlioch  against  Paul  ofSamosala. 

NOTE        The  principal  evidence  in  favour  of  Paul's  Nestorianism  consists 

II.     in  the  Letter  of  Dionysius  to  Paul  and  his  answer  to  Paul's  Ten 

ON      Questions,  which  are  certainly  spurious,  as  on  other  grounds,  so 

(^5>UNC-on   some  of  those  here  urged  against  the   professed  Creed  of 

AND*'  -Antioch,  but  which  Dr.  Burton  in  his  excellent  remarks  on  Paul's 

SELEU.  opinions,  Bampton  Lectures,  No.  102,  admits  as  genuine.    And  so 

~~  does  the  accurate  and  cautious  Tillemont,  who  in  consequence  is 

obliged  to  believe  that  Paul  held  Nestorian  doctrines ;  also  Bull, 

Fabricius,  Natalis  Alexander,  &c.     In  holding  these  compositions 

to  be  certainly  spurious,  I  am  following  Valesius,  Harduin,  Mont- 

faucon,  Pagi,  Mosheim,  Cave,  Routh,  and  others. 

It  might  be  inquired  in  conclusion,  whether  after  all  the  Creed 
does  not  contain  marks  of  Apollinarianism  in  it,  which,  if  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  would  tend  to  fix  its  date.  As,  however,  this 
would  carry  us  further  still  from  our  immediate  subject  in  this 
Volume,  it  has  been  judged  best  not  to  enter  upon  the  question. 
Some  indulgence  may  fairly  be  asked  for  what  has  been  already 
said,  from  its  bearing  upon  the  history  of  the  word 





CHAP.  I. 


Reason  for  writing;   certain  persons  indifferent  about  Arianism;   Arians 
not  Christians,  because  sectaries  always  take  the  name  of  their  founder. 

1.  OF  all  other  heresies  which  have  departed  from  the  truth  CHAP. 
it  is  acknowledged,  that  they  have  but  devised*  a  madness1,  —  —  -  — 
and  their  irreligiousness2  has  long  since  become  notorious  ip  2  ' 
to  all   men.     For,  thatb  their  authors  went  out  from  us,  itnotee- 
plainly  follows,  as  the  blessed  John  has  written,  that  they  note  q. 
neither  thought  nor  now  think  with  us.     Wherefore,  as  saith  2  P-  J  ' 

note  a. 

the  Saviour,  in  that  they  gather  not  with  us,  they  scatter  with 
the  devil,  and  keep  an  eye  on  those  who  slumber,  that,  by  this 
second  sowing3  of  their  own  mortal  poison,  they  may  have3  p.  f>, 
companions  in  death.     But,  whereas  one  heresy  and  that  the  no 

This  is  almost  a  tech-  but  what  from  the  beginning  the  Ecde- 

nical   word,   and   has   occurred   again  sicistical  Tradition  declared.1'  Hist.  iii. 

and  again   already,   as   descriptive  of  7.    The  sense  of  the  word  I  rm/a  which 

heretical  teaching  in  opposition  to  the  will  come  into  consideration  below,  is 

received  traditionary  doctrine.      It  is  akin  to  this,  being  the  view  taken  by 

also    found    passim    in    other   writers,  the  mind  of  an  object  independent  of 

Thus  Socrates,  speaking  of  the  decree  (whether  or  not  correspondent  to)  the 

of  the    Council   of    Alexandria,   362,  object  itself. 

against  Apollinaris  ;    "for   not  origi-         ''  TO  yu.^  \'ti\6i7v  ----  1**.™  «»  »/'»,  i.  e. 

nating,  Ivrtiowuvrtf  ,  any  novel  devotion,  vu  and  so  infr.  §.  43.  r^  Tt  *«.} 

did  they  introduce  it  into  the  Church,  \lv6an  ----  JJjAov  &*  i<V 


178     Arians,  tin  like  forme?-  heretics,  appeal  to  Scripture. 

Disc,  last,  which  has  now  risen  as  harbinger1  of  Antichrist,  the 

i — - Arian,  as  it  is  called,  considering  that  other   heresies,  her 

note  q.'  elder  sisters,  have  been  openly  proscribed,  in  her  cun- 
ning and  profligacy,  affects  to  array  herself  in  Scripture 
language0,  like  her  father  the  devil,  and  is  forcing  her  way 
back  into  the  Church's  paradise, — that  with  the  pretence  of 
Christianity,  her  smooth  sophistry  (for  reason  she  has  none) 
may  deceive  men  into  wrong  thoughts  of  Christ, — nay,  since 
she  hath  already  seduced  certain  of  the  foolish,  not  only  to 
corrupt  their  ears,  but  even  to  take  and  eat  with  Eve,  till  in 
their  ignorance  which  ensues  they  think  bitter  sweet,  and 
admire  this  loathsome  heresy,  on  this  account  I  have  thought 
Job  41,  it  necessary,  at  your  request,  to  unrip  the  folds  of  its  breast- 
'  plate,  and  to  shew  the  ill-savour  of  its  folly.  So  while  those 
who  are  far  from  it,  may  continue  to  shun  it,  those  whom  it 
has  deceived  may  repent ;  and>  opening  the  eyes  of  their 
heart,  may  understand  that  darkness  is  not  light,  nor  false- 
hood truth,  nor  Arianism  good;  nay,  that  thosed  who  call 

e  vid.  infr.  $.  4  fin.  That  heresies  founded  on  some  particular  text.  e.  g. 
before  the  Arian  appealed  to  Scripture  infr.  §.  22.  "  amply  providing  them- 
we  learn  from  Tertullian,  de  Prsescr.  selves  with  words  of  craft,  they  used  to 
42.  who  warns  Catholics  against  in-  go  about,&c  cr*^J5f^avra."vid.supr.p.22. 
dulging  themselves  in  their  own  view  note  y.  Also  oivu  *«}  x&ru  vrtgitp'igavrts, 
of  isolated  texts  against  the  voice  of  the  de  deer.  §.  13.  ru  p-nru  -rtfyvXXrixKfft  TO, 
Catholic  Church,  vid.  also  Vincentius,  vravrx^ov.  Orat.  ii.  §.  18.  <ro  foXvfyvi.- 
who  specifies  obiter  Sabellius  and  No-  Xnrov  <ro(pi<rftet,  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii. 
vatian.  Commonit.2.  Still  Arianism  was  14.  vwv  yroXvfyvXXvTov  ^tuXtxnxriv ,  Nys- 
contrastcd  with  other  heresies  on  this  sen.  contr.  tun.  iii.  p.  125.  *w  6%v\- 
point,  as  in  these  two  respects  ;  (l.)they  *.«up.ivti»  uxoppow.  Cyril.  Dial.  iv.  p.505. 
appealed  to  a  secret  tradition,  unknown.  r«»  xvXufyvXXnrov  Qavw.  Socr.  ii.  43. 
even  to  most  of  the  Apostles,  as  the  d  These  Orations  or  Discourses  seem 
Gnostics,  Iren.  Haer.  iii.  I.  or  they  pro-  written  to  shew  the  vital  importance  of 
fessed  a  gift  of  prophecy  introducing  the  point  in  controversy,  and  the  un- 
fresh  revelations,  as  Montanists,  supr.  Christian  character  of  the  heresy, 
p.  78.  and  Manichees,  Aug.  coutr.  without  reference  to  the  word  eftoounov. 
Faust,  xxxii.  6.  (2.)  The  Arians  He  has  insisted  in  the  works  above 
availed  themselves  of  certain  texts  translated, p. 130, ref.2.  that  the  enforce- 
as  objections,  argued  keenly  and  ment  of  the  symbol  was  but  the  rejec- 
plausibly  from  them,  and  would  tion  of  the  heresy,  and  accordingly  he 
not  be  driven  from  them.  Orat.  ii.  is  here  content  to  bring  out  the  Catholic 
§.  18.  c.  Epiph.  Haer.  69.  15.  Or  rather  sense,  as  feeling  that,  if  persons  under- 
they  took  some  words  of  Scripture,  and  stood  and  embraced  it,  they  would  not 
made  their  own  deductions  from  them  ;  scruple  at  the  word.  He  seems  to 
viz.  "  Son,"  "  made,"  "  exalted,"  &c.  allude  to  what  maybe  called  the  liberal 
"  Making  their  private  irreligiousness  or  indifferent  feeling  as  swaying  the  per- 
as  if  a  rule,  they  misinterpret  all  the  son  for  whom  he  writes,  also  infr.  §. 
divine  oracles  by  it."  Orat.i.  §.52.  vid.  7  fin.  §.  9.  §.  10  init.  §.  15  fin.  §.  17. 
also  Epiph.  Haer.  76.5  fin.  Hence  we  §.  21.  $.  23.  He  mentions  in  Apollin. 
hear  so^much  of  their  6^v\\r,ru}  <p<u»«/,  i.  6.  one  Rhetorius,  who  was  an  Egyp- 
Xi£s/j,  ?T»J,  purof,  sayings  in  general  tian,  whose  opinion,  he  says,  it  was 
circulation,  which  were  commonly  "  fearful  to  mention,"  S.  Augustine 

Arians  for  Christ  follow  Arius.  179 

these  men  Christians,  are  in  great  and  grievous  error,  as  CHAP. 
neither  having  studied  Scripture,  nor  understanding  Christi-  — - — 
anity  at  all,  and  the  faith  which  it  contains. 

2.  For  what  have  they  discovered  in  this  heresy  like  to  the    §.  2. 
religious  Faith,  that  they  vainly  talk  as  if  its  supporters  said 
no  evil  ?     This  in  truth  is  to  call  even  Caiaphas J  a  Christian,  'deDecr. 
and  to  reckon  the  traitor  Judas  still  among  the  Apostles,  and  |  ^ '*' 
to  say  that  they  who  asked  Barabbas  instead  of  the  Saviour 41.  §.27, 
did  no  evil,  and  to  recommend  Hymen  sens  and  Alexander  as 
right-minded   men,  and  as  if  the  Apostle  slandered  them. 
But  neither  can  a  Christian  bear  to  hear  this,  nor  can  he 
consider  the  man  who  dared  to  say  it  sane  in  his  understand- 
ing.     For    with    them    for    Christ   is    Arius,    as   with    the 
Manichees  Manichaeus ;  and  for  Moses  and  the  other  saints 
they  have  made  the  discovery  of  one  Sotades2,  a  man  whom  2  p.  94, 
even  Gentiles  laugh  at,  and  of  the  daughter  of  Herodias.  note  a' 
For  of  the  one  has  Arius  imitated  the  dissolute  and  effe- 
minate tone,  in  the  Thalias  which  he  has  written  after  him; 
and   the   other   he  has  rivalled  in  her  dance,  reeling  and 
frolicking  in  his  blasphemies  against  the  Saviour;   till  the 
victims   of  his  heresy  lose  their  wits  and  go  foolish,  and 
change  the  Name  of  the  Lord  of  glory  into  the  likeness  of 
the  image  of  corruptible  man5,  and  for  Christians'1  come  to  be3vid.Htt. 
called  Arians,  bearing  this  badge  of  their  irreligion.  viii.  28.' 

3.  For  let  them  not  excuse  themselves;  nor  retort  their ^om<  *» 
disgrace  on  those  who  are  not  as  they,  calling  Christians  after  4  p.  27, 
the  names  of  their  teachers0,  that  they  themselves  may  appear  note  h* 

tells  us  that  this  man  taught  that  "  all  Pelagians  ;    as  even    by  heresies    are 

heresies  were  in   the  right  path,   and  Arians  called  Arians.     But  ye,  and  ye 

spoke  truth,"  "  which,"  he  adds,  "  is  only,  call  us  Traducianists,  as  Arians 

so  absurd    as    to   seem    to    me    incre-  call  us  Homolisians,  as  Donatists  Ma- 

dible."    Hser.   72.   vid.    also  Philastr.  carians,  as  Manichees  Pharisees,  and 

Hser.  91.  as  the  other  heretics  use  various  titles." 

e  He  seems  to  allude  to   Catholics  Op.  imp.  i.  75.     It  may  be  added  that 

being  called  Athanasians;    vid.   how-  the   heretical   n-aine  adheres^  the   Ca- 

ever  p.  181,  ref.  1.     Two  distinctions  tholic  dies  away.   S.  Chrysostom  draws 

are  drawnbetweensuch  a  title  as  applied  a  second  distinction,  ''  Are  we  divided 

to  Catholics,  and  again  to  heretics,  when  from  the    Church?    have   we    heresi- 

they  are  taken  by  Catholics  as  a  note  archs  ?    are  we  called  from  man  ?    is 

against    them.      S.    Augustine    says,  there  any  leader  to  us,  as  to  one  there 

"Arians  call  Catholics  Athanasians  or  is  Marcion,  to  another  Manichseus,  to 

Homousians,    not    other    heretics    too.  another  Arius,  to  another  some  other 

But  ye  not  only  by  Catholics  but  also  by  author  of  heresy?  for  if  we  too  have 

heretics,   those    who    agree   with    you  the  name  of  any,  still  it  is  not  those 

and   those    who    disagree,   are   called  who  began  the  heresy,  but  our  superiors 


180     Self-condemned  in  that  they  are  called  after  Arms 

DISC,  to  have  that  Name  in  the  same  way.     Nor  let  them  make  a  jest 
'•      of  it,  when  they  feel  shame  at  their  disgraceful  appellation  ; 
rather,  if  they  be  ashamed,  let  them  hide   their  faces,  or 
let   them   recoil   from   their   own   irreligion.     For   never  at 
any   time  did    Christian   people  take   their   title   from  the 
1  vid.      Bishops1  among  them,  but  from  the  Lord,  on  whom  we  rest 
p°  179^  our  faith.    Thus,  though  the  blessed  Apostles  have  become  our 
teachers,  and  have  ministered  the  Saviour's  Gospel,  yet  not 
from  them  have  we  our  title,  but  from  Christ  we  are  and  are 
named  Christians.     But  for  those  who  derive  the  faith  which 
they  profess  from    others,   good   reason   is   it   they  should 
§.3.  bear  their  name,  whose  property  they  have  become f.     Yes 

note  e, 

and  governors  of  the  Church.  We  have 
not  '  teachers  upon  earth,'  "  &c.  in 
Act.  Ap.  Horn.  33  fin. 

f  vid.  foregoing  note.  Also  "Let  us  be- 
come His  disciples  and  learn  to  live  ac- 
cording to  Christianity  ;  for  whoso  is 
called  by  other  name  beside  this,  is  not 
of  God."Ignat.  ad  Magn.10.  Hegisippus 
speaks  of"  Menandrians,  and  Marcion- 
ites,  and  Carpocratians,  and  Valentini- 
ans,  and  Basilidians,  and  Saturnilians," 
who  "  each  in  his  own  way  and  that 
a  different  one  brought  in  his  own 
doctrine."  Euseb.  Hist.  iv.  22.  "There 
are,  and  there  have  been,  my  friends, 
many  who  have  taught  atheistic  and 
blasphemous  words  and  deeds,  coming 
in  the  Name  of  Jesus ;  and  they  are 
called  by  us  from  the  appellation  of  the 
men,  whence  each  doctrine  and  opinion 

began Some  are  called  Marcians, 

others  Valentinians,  others  Basilidians, 
others  Saturnilians,"  &c.  Justin. 
Tryph.  35.  "  They  have  a  name  from 
the  author  of  that  most  impious  opinion 
Simon,  being  called  Simonians."  Iren. 
Han\  i.  23.  "  When  men  are  called 
Phrygians,  or  Novatians,  or  Valenti- 
nians, or  Marcionites,  or  Anthropians, 
or  by  any  other  name,  they  cease  to  be 
Christians  ;  for  they  have  lost  Christ's 
Name,  and  clothe  themselves  in  human 
and  foreign  titles."  Lact.  Inst.  iv.  30. 
"  A.  How  are  you  a  Christian,  to 
whom  it  is  not  even  granted  to  bear  the 
name  of  Christian?  for  you  are  not  called 
Christian  but  Marcionite.  M.  And 
you  are  called  of  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
therefore  ye  are  not  Christians  either. 
A.  Did  we  profess  man's  name,  you 
would  have  spoken  to  the  point;  but  if 
we  are  called  from  being  all  over  the 
world,  what  is  there  bad  in  this  ?"  Ada- 

mant. Dial.  $.  1.  p.  809.  "  We  never 
heard  of  Petrines,  or  Paulines,  or  Bar- 
tholomeans,  or  Thaddeans,  but  from  the 
first  there  was  one  preaching  of  all  the 
Apostles,  not  preaching  them,  but  Chi-ist 
Jesus  the  Lord.  Wherefore  also  they 
all  gave  one  name  to  the  Church,  not 
their  own,  but  that  of  their  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  since  they  began  to  be  called 
Christians  first  at  Antioch  ;  which  is 
the  sole  Catholic  Church,  having  nought 
else  but  Christ's,  being  a  Church  of 
Christians,  not  of  Christs,  but  of  Chris- 
tians ;  He  being  one,  they  from  that 
one  being  called  Christians.  After  this 
Church  and  her  preachers,  all  others 
are  no  longer  of  the  same  character, 
making  show  by  their  own  epithets, 
Manichaeans,  and  Simonians,  and  Va- 
lentinians, and  Ebionites."  Epiph. 
Hcer.  42.  p.  366.  "  This  is  the  fearful 
thing,  that  they  change  the  name  of 
Christians  of  the  Holy  Church,  which 
hath  no  epithet  but  the  name  of  Christ 
alone,  and  of  Christians,  to  be  called 
by  the  name  of  Audius,  '  &c.  ibid.  70. 
15.  vid.  also  Hser.  75.  6  fin.  "  Since 
one  might  properly  and  truly  say  that 
there  is  a  '  Church  of  evil  doers,'  I 
mean  the  meetings  of  the  heretics,  the 
Marcionists,  and  Manichees,  and  the 
rest,  the  faith  hath  delivered  to  thee 
by  way  of  security  the  Article  '  And 
in  One  Holy  Catholic  Church,'  that 
thou  mayest  avoid  their  wretched 
meetings  ;  and  ever  abide  with  the 
Holy  Church  Catholic,  in  which  thou 
wast  regenerated.  And  if  ever  thou 
art  sojourning  in  any  city,  inquire  not 
simply  where  the  Lord's  House  is,  (for 
the  sects  of  the  profane  also  make  an 
attempt  to  call  their  own  dens,  houses 
of  the  Lord,)  nor  merely  where  the 

as  other  heretics  after  their  leaders.  181 

surely;  while  all  of  us  are  arid  are  called  Christians  alter  CHAP. 
Christ,  Marcion  broaehed  a  heresy  time  since  and  was  cast  — L_. 
out ;  and  those  who  continued  with  the  Bishop  who  ejected 
him  remained  Christians  ;  but  those  who  followed  Marcion, 
were  called  Christians  no  more,  but  henceforth  Marcion- 
ites.  Thus  Valentinus  also,  and  Basilides,  and  Manichaeus, 
and  Simon  Magus,  have  imparted  their  own  name  to  their 
followers;  and  are  accosted  as  Valentinians,  or  as  Basilidians, 
or  as  Manichees,  or  as  Simonians ;  and  others,  Cataphrygians 
from  Phrygia,  and  from  Novatus  Novatians.  So  too  Meletius, 
when  ejected  by  Peter  the  Bishop  and  Martyr,  called  his 
party,  no  longer  Christians,  but  Meletians  g ;  and  so  in  con- 
sequence when  Alexander  of  blessed  memory  had  cast  out 
Arius,  those  who  remained  with  Alexander,  remained 
Christians;  but  those  who  went  out  with  Arius,  left  the 
Saviour's  Name  to  us  who  were  with  Alexander,  and  as  to 
them  they  were  henceforward  denominated  Arians.  Behold 
then,  after  Alexander's  death  too,  those  who  communicate 
with  his  successor  Athanasius,  and  those  with  whom  the  said 
Athanasius  communicates,  are  instances  of  the  same  rule ; 
none  of  them  bear  his  name1,  nor  is  he  named  from  them,  but  i  vjd. 
all  in  like  manner,  and  as  is  usual,  are  called  Christians.  hop!s)c' 
For  though  we  have  a  succession  of  teachers  and  become  note  e. 

Church  is,  but  where  is  the  Catholic  gogue    of    Antichrist/'    Jerom.    adv. 

Church.    For  this  is  the  peculiar  name  Lucif.  fin. 

of  this  Holy  Body,"  &c.  Cyril.  Cat.         e  vid.  supr.  p.  89,  note  m.    Meletius 

xviii.  26.      "  Were   I   by    chance  to  was  Bishop  of  Lycopolis  in  the  The- 

enter  a  populous  city,  I  should  in  this  bais,  in  the  first  years  of  the  fourth  cen- 

day   find    Marcionites,    Apollinarians,  tury.     He  was  convicted  of  sacrificing 

Cataphrygians,  Novatians,   and  other  to  idols  in  the  persecution,  .and  deposed 

such,  who  called  themselves  Christian  ;  by  a  Council  under  Peter,  Bishop  of 

by  what  surname  should  I  recognise  Alexandria,  and  subsequently  martyr. 

the  congregation  of  my  own  people,  Meletius  separated  from  his  communion, 

were  it  not  called  Catholic? Cer-  and  commenced  a  schism ;  at  the  time 

tainly    that    word    l  Catholic'    is    not  of  the  Nicene  Council  it  included  as 

borrowed  from   man,  which  has  sur-  many  as  twenty-eight  or  thirty  Bishops; 

vived  through  so  many  ages,  nor  has  the  in  the  time  of  Theodoret,  a  century  and 

sound  of  Marcion  or  Apelles  or  Mon-  quarter  later,  it  included  a  number  of 

tanus,  nor  takes  heretics  for  its  authors  Monks.     Though  not  heterodox,  they 

..Christian  is  my  name,  Catholic  my  supported    the    Arians   on   their   first 

surname."   Pacian.  Ep.  1.     "  If  you  appearance,  in  their  contest  with  the 

ever  hear  those  who  are  called  Chris-  Catholics.     The  Council  of  Nicaea,  in- 

tians,  named,  not  from  the  Lord  Jesus  stead  of  deposing  them,  allowed  theii 

Christ,  but  from  some  one  else,  say  Bishops  a  titular  rank  in  their  sees,  but 

Marcionites,      Valentinians,     Moun-  forbade   them   to  exercise   their  func- 

taineers,  Campestrians,  know  that  it  is  tions. 
not    Christ's   Church,    but   the   syna- 

182         For  Scripture  the  Arians  follow  the  Thalia. 

Disc,  their  disciples,  yet,  because  we  are  taught  by  them  the  things 
L  of  Christ,  we  both  are,  and  are  called,  Christians  all  the  same. 
But  those  who  follow  the  heretics,  though  they  have  innu- 
merable successors  in  their  heresy,  yet  for  certain  bear  the 
name  of  him  who  devised  it.  Thus,  though  Arius  be  dead, 
and  many  of  his  party  have  succeeded  him,  yet  those  who 
think  with  him,  as  being  known  from  Arius,  are  called  Arians. 
And,  what  is  a  remarkable  evidence  of  this,  those  of  the 
Greeks  who  even  at  this  time  come  into  the  Church,  on 
giving  up  the  superstition  of  idols,  take  the  name,  not  of 
their  catechists,  but  of  the  Saviour,  and  are  henceforth  for 
Greeks  called  Christians ;  while  those  of  them  who  go  off 
to  the  heretics,  and  again  all  who  from  the  Church  change  to 
this  heresy,  abandon  Christ's  name,  and  at  once  are  called 
Arians,  as  no  longer  holding  Christ's  faith,  but  having  in- 
herited Anus's  madness. 

§.4.  4.  How  then  can  they  be  Christians,  who  for  Christians  are 
Ano-maniacs h  ?  or  how  are  they  of  the  Catholic  Church,  who 
have  shaken  off  the  Apostolical  faith,  and  become  authors  of 
what  is  new  and  evil  ?  who,  after  abandoning  the  oracles 
of  divine  Scripture,  call  Arius's  Thalias  a  new  wisdom  ? 
and  with  reason  too,  for  they  are  announcing  a  new  heresy. 
And  hence  a  man  may  marvel,  that,  whereas  many  have  written 
many  treatises  and  abundant  homilies  upon  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  yet  in  none  of  them  is  a  Thalia  found ;  nay 
nor  among  the  more  respectable  of  the  Gentiles,  but  among 
those  only  who  sing  such  strains  over  their  cups,  amid  cheers 
and  jokes,  when  men  are  merry,  that  the  rest  may  laugh ;  till 
this  marvellous  Arius,  taking  no  grave  pattern,  and  ignorant 
even  of  what  is  respectable,  while  he  stole  largely  from  other 
heresies,  would  be  original  in  the  ludicrous,  with  none  but 
Sotades  for  his  rival.  For  what  beseemed  him  more,  when 
he  would  dance  forth  against  the  Saviour,  then  to  throw  his 
wretched  words  of  irreligion  into  dissolute  and  abandoned 

vid.        metres  ?  that,  while  a  man,  as  Wisdom  says,  is  known  from 

Ecclus.  J    ' 

4,  24. 

h  vid.  p.   91,   note  q.     Manes  also  Catecb.  vi.  20.   vid.  also  ibid.  24  fin. 

was  called  mad  ;    "  Thou   must  hate  — a  play  upon  the  name.    vid.  p.  114, 

all  heretics,   but   especially   him    who  note  b. 
even  in   name   is    a    maniac."    Cvril. 

In  vain  to  appeal  to  Scripture,  when  doctrine  is  heretical.  183 

the  utterance  of  his  word,  so  from  those  numbers  should  be  CHAP. 
seen  the  writer's  effeminate  soul  and  corruption  of  thought1.  — - — 
In  truth,  that  crafty  one  did  not  escape  detection  ;  but,  for  all 
his  many  writhings  to  and  fro,  like  the  seipent,  he  did  but 
fall  into  the  error  of  the  Pharisees.     They,  that  they  might 
transgress  the  Law,  pretended  to  be  anxious  for  the  words 
of  the  Law,  and  that  they  might  deny  the  expected  and  then 
present  Lord,  were  hypocritical  with  God's  name,  and  were 
convicted  of  blaspheming  when  they  said,  Why  dost  Thou,  Johnio, 
being  a  man,  make   Tlujself  Godk,  and  sayest,  /  and  the 
Father  are  one  ?    And  so  too,  this  counterfeit  and  Sotadean 
Arius,  feigns  to  speak  of  God,  introducing  Scripture  language  *, !  P- 1^8> 

1  It  is  very  difficult  to  gain  a  clear 
idea  of  the  character  of  Arius.  Atha- 
nasius  speaks  as  if  his  Thalia  was  but 
a  token  of  his  persDnal  laxity,  and  cer- 
tainly the  mere  fact  of  his  having 
written  it  seems  incompatihle  with  any 
remarkable  seriousness  and  strictness. 
Yet  Constantine  and  Epiphanius  speak 
of  him  in  very  different  terms,  yet  each 
in  his  own  way,  in  the  following  ex- 
tracts. It  is  possible  that  Constantine 
is  only  declaiming,  for  his  whole  in- 
vective is  like  a  school  exercise  or  fancy 
composition.  Constantine  too  had  not 
seen  Arius  at  the  time  of  this  invective 
which  was  prior  to  the  Nicene  Council, 
and  his  account  of  him  is  inconsistent 
with  itself,  for  he  also  uses  the  very  strong 
and  broad  language  about  Arius  qaoted 
supr.  p.  94,  note  a.  "  Look  then,  look 
all  men,  what  words  of  lament  he  is  now 
professing,  being  held  with  the  bite  of 
the  serpent ;  how  his  veins  and  flesh  are 
possessed  with  poison,  and  are  in  a 
ferment  of  severe  pain  ;  how  his  whole 
body  is  wasted,  and  is  all  withered  and 
sad  and  pale  and  shaking,  and  all  that 
is  miserable,  and  fearfully  emaciated. 
How  hateful  to  see,  and  filthy  is  his 
mass  of  hair,  how  he  is  half  dead  all 
over,  with  failing  eyes,  and  bloodless 
countenance,  and  woe-begone !  so  that 
all  these  things  combining  in  him  at 
once,  frenzy,  madness,  and  folly,  for 
the  continuance  of  the  complaint,  have 
made  thee  wild  and  savage.  But  not 
having  any  sense,  what  bad  plight  he  is 
in,  he  cries  out,  l  I  am  transported  with 
delight,  and  I  leap  and  skip  for  joy,  and 
I  fly:'  and  again,  with  boyish  impe- 
tuosity, '  Be  it  so/  he  says,  '  we  are 

lost.'  "  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  i.  p.  457. 
Perhaps  this  strange  account  may  be 
taken  to  illustrate  the  words  "  mania" 
and  "  Ario-maniacs."  S.  Alexander 
too  speaks  of  Arius  's  melancholic  teva.- 

**f.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3.  p.  741.  S.Ba- 
sil also  speaks  of  the  Eunomians  as  ilf 

contr.  Eun.  ii.  24.  Elsewhere  he  speaks 
of  the  Pneumatomachists  as  worse  than 
fttXa'y%o&&trts.  de  Sp.  S.  41.  Epipha- 
nius rs  account  of  Arius  is  as  follows  :  — 
u  From  elation  of  mind  the  old  man 
swerved  from  the  mark.  He  was  in 
stature  very  tall,  downcast  in  visage, 
with  manners  like  wily  serpent,  capti- 
vating to  every  guileless  heart  by  that 
same  crafty  bearing.  For  ever  habited 
in  cloke  and  vest  he  was  pleasant  of 
address,  ever  persuading  souls  and  flat- 
tering ;  wherefore  what  was  his  very 
first  work  but  to  withdraw  from  the 
Church  in  one  body  as  many  as  seven 
hundred  women  who  professed  virgin- 
ity?" Haer.  69.  3.  Arius  is  here  said 
to  have  been  tall  ;  Athanasius,  on  the 
other  hand,  would  appear  to  have  been 
short,  if  we  may  so  interpret  Julian's 
indignant  description  of  him,  ptdl  «v^, 
aXX*  avfyu-riffxes  ivrtXiit,  u  not  even  a 
man,  but  a  common  little  fellow."  Ep. 
51  .  Yet  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen  speaks 
of  him  as  u  high  in  prowess,  and  hum- 
ble in  spirit,  mild,  meek,  full  of  sympa- 
thy, pleasant  in  speech,  more  pleasant 
in  manners,  angelical  in  person,  more 
angelical  in  mind,  serene  in  his  rebukes. 
instructive  in  his  praises,"  &c.  £c.  Orat. 


Arianism  an  Atheism. 

Disc,  but  is  on  all  sides  recognised  as  godless k  Arius,  denying  the 
— L_.  Son,  and  reckoning  Him  among  the  creatures. 

k  And  so  godless  or  atheist  Ae- 
tius,  supr.  p.  81.  vid.  p.  3,  note  f.  for 
an  explanation  of  the  word.  In  like 
manner  Athan.  says,  ad  Scrap,  iii.  2. 
that  if  a  man  says  "  that  the  Son  is  a 
creature,  who  is  Word  and  Wisdom, 
and  the  Expression,  and  the  Radiance, 
whom  whoso  seeth  seeth  the  Father," 
he  falls  under  the  text,  "  Whoso  de- 
nieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 
Father."  "  Such  a  one,"  he  continues, 
"  will  in  no  long  time  say,  as  the  fool, 
There  is  no  God."  In  like  manner  he 
speaks  of  those  who  think  the  Son  to 
he  the  Spirit  as  "  without  (1|»)  the  Holy 
Trinity,  and  atheists."  Scrap,  iv.  6. 
hecause  they  really  do  not  believe  in 
the  God  that  is,  and  there  is  none 
other  hut  He.  And  so  again,  u  As  the 
faith  delivered  [in  the  Holy  Trinity]  is 
one,  and  this  unites  us  to  God,  and  he 
who  takes  aught  from  the  Trinity,  and 
is  baptized  in  the  sole  Name  of  the 
Father  or  of  the  Son,  or  in  Father  and 

Son  without  the  Spirit,  gains  nothing, 
but  remains  empty  and  incomplete, 
both  he  and  the  professed  administrator, 
(for  in  the  Trinity  is  the  completion, 
[initiation,])  so  whoso  divides  the  Son 
from  the  Father,  or  degrades  the 
Spirit  to  the  creatures,  hath  neither  the 
Son  nor  the  Father,  but  is  an  atheist 
and  worse  than  an  infidel  and  any 
thing  but  a  Christian.*'  Scrap,  i.  30. 
Eustathius  speaks  of  the  Arians  as 
eivtov*ovi  a.6ie»;,  who  were  attempting 
xguTr<0-ai  rev  Si'itv.  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  7. 
p.  760.  .Naz.  speaks  of  the  heathen 
xolvlug  Mtia..  Orat.  25.  15.  and  he 
calls  faith  and  regeneration  "  a  denial 
of  atheism,  Mttuf,  and  a  confession 
of  godhead,  homves,  Orat.  23.  12.  He 
calls  Lucius,  the  Alexandrian  Anti- 
pope,  on  account  of  his  cruelties,  "  this 
second  Arius,  the  more  copious  river  of 
the  atheistic  spring,  rtis  aPiov  xtiyris" 
Orat.  25.  11.  Palladius,  the  Imperial 
officer,  is  «v>i£  afioe.  ibid.  12. 



Arius  maintains  that  God  became  a  Father,  and  the  Son  was  not  always  ; 
the  Son  out  of  nothing;  once  He  was  not;  He  was  not  before  His  gene- 
ration ;  He  was  created ;  named  Wisdom  and  Word  after  God's  attributes ; 
made  that  He  might  make  us  ;  one  out  of  many  powers  of  God ;  alterable ; 
exalted  on  God's  foreknowledge  what  He  was  to  be;  not  very  God;  but 
called  so  as  others  by  participation ;  foreign  in  substance  from  the  Father; 
does  not  know  or  see  the  Father;  does  not  know  Himself. 

1.    Now  the  commencement  of  Anus's   Thalia   and   flip-  CHAP. 


pancy,  effeminate  in  tone  and  nature,  runs  thus : — 


"  According  to  faith  of  God's  elect,  God's  prudent  ones, 
Holy  children,  rightly  dividing,  God's  Holy  Spirit  receiving, 
Have  I  learned  this  from  the  partakers  of  wisdom, 
Accomplished,  divinely  taught,  and  wise  in  all  things. 
Along  their  track,  have  I  been  walking,  with  like  opinions, 
I  the  very  famous,  the  much  suffering  for  God's  glory; 
And  taught  of  God,  I  have  acquired  wisdom  and  knowledge." 

Arid  the  mockeries  which  he  utters  in  it,  repulsive  and 
most  irreligious,  are  such  as  these  l : — "  God  was  not  always « de  Sy  a. 
a  Father ;"  but  "  once  God  was  alone  and  not  yet  a  Father,  $'  j^* 
but  afterwards  He  became  a  Father."  "  The  Son  was  not 
always ;"  for,  whereas  all  things  were  made  out  of  nothing, 
and  all  existing  creatures  and  works  were  made,  so  the  Word 
of  God  Himself  was  "  made  out  of  nothing,"  and  "  once  He 
was  not,"  and  "  He  was  not  before  His  generation,"  but  He 
as  others  "  had  an  origin  of  creation."  "  For  God,"  he  says, 
"  was  alone,  and  the  Word  as  yet  was  not,  nor  the  Wisdom. 
Then,  wishing  to  frame  us,  thereupon  He  made  a  certain 
one,  and  named  Him  Word  and  Wisdom  and  Son,  that 
He  might  form  us  by  means  of  Him."  Accordingly,  he  says 

186  Arius's  Thalia 

Disc,  that  there  are  two  wisdoms,  first,  the  attribute  coexistent  with 

— - —  God,  and  next,  that  in  this  Wisdom  the  Son  was  generated, 

and  was  only  named  Wisdom  and  Word  as  partaking  of  it. 

"  For  Wisdom,"  saith  he,  "  by  the  will  of  the  wise  God,  had 

its  existence  in  Wisdom."    In  like  manner,  he  says,  that  there 

is  another  Word  in  God  besides  the  Son,  and  that  the  Son 

again  as  partaking  of  it,  is  named  Word  and  Son  according 

to  grace.     And  this  too  is  an  idea  proper  to  their  heresy,  as 

shewn  in  other  works  of  theirs,  that  there  are  many  powers ; 

one  of  which  is  God's  own  by  nature  and  eternal ;  but  that 

Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not  the  true  power  of  God ;  but, 

as  others,  one  of  the  so-called  powers ;  one  of  which,  namely, 

'deSyn.  t^e  ]ocust  and   the  caterpillar1,  is  called  in  Scripture,  not 

101. '     merely  the   power,  but   the  great  power.     The  others   are 

2^e  2'   many  and  are  like  the  Son,  and  of  them  David  speaks  in  the 

Ps.  24,  Psalms,  when  he  says,  The  Lord  of  hosts  or  powers.    And  by 

nature,  as  all  others,  so  the  Word  Himself  is  alterable,  and 

remains  good  by  His  own  free  will,  while  He  chooseth  ;  when, 

however,  He  wills,  He  can  alter  as  we  can,  as  being  of  an 

alterable  nature.     For  "  therefore,"  saith  he,  "  as  foreknowing 

that  He  would  be  good,  did  God  by  anticipation  bestow  on 

Him  this  glory,  which  afterwards,  as  man,  He  attained  from 

3 p.  11,  virtue.      Thus   in   consequence  of  His  works  fore-known2, 

114,       did  God  bring  it  to  pass  that  He,  being  such,  should  come 

note  c'    to  be." 

§.  6.  2.  Moreover  he  has  dared  to  say,  that  "the  Word  is  not  the 
very  God ;"  "  though  He  is  called  God,  yet  He  is  not  very 
God,"  but  "by  participation  of  grace,  He,  as  others,  is  God 
only  in  name."  And,  whereas  all  beings  are  foreign  and  dif- 
ferent from  God  in  substance,  so  too  is  "  the  Word  alien  and 
unlike  in  all  things  to  the  Father's  substance  and  propriety," 
but  belongs  to  things  generated  and  created,  and  is  one 
of  these.  Afterwards,  as  though  he  had  succeeded  to  the 
devil's  recklessness,  he  has  stated  in  his  Thalia,  that  "  even 
to  the  Son  the  Father  is  invisible,"  and  "  the  Word  cannot 
perfectly  and  exactly  either  see  or  know  His  own  Father ;" 
but  even  what  He  knows  and  what  He  sees,  He  knows  and 
sees  "  in  proportion  to  His  own  measure,"  as  we  also  know 
according  to  our  own  power.  For  the  Son  too,  he  says,  not 
only  knows  not  the  Father  exactly,  for  He  fails  in  compre- 

excites  horror.  187 

hension  %  but  "  He  knows  not  even  His  own  substance ;" —  CHAP. 
and  that  "  the  substances  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the     IL 
Holy  Ghost,  are  separate  in  nature,  and  estranged,  and  discon- 
nected, and  alien1,  and  without  participation  of  each  other2;"  l  P-  43> 
and,  in  his  own  words,  "utterly  unlike  from  each  other  in  2  p.  95^ 
substance  and  glory,  unto  infinity."     Thus  as  to  "  likeness note  d- 
of  glory  and  substance,"  he  says  that  the  Word  is  entirely 
diverse  from  both  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.    With  such 
words  hath  the  irreligious  spoken ;  maintaining  that  the  Son  is 
distinct  by  Himself,  and  in  no  respect  partaker  of  the  Father. 
These  are  portions  of  Arius's  fables  as  they  occur  in  that 
jocose  composition. 

3.  Who  is  there  that  hears  all  this,  nay,  the  metre  of  the   §.  7. 
Thalia,  but  must  hate,  and  justly  hate,  this  Arius  jesting 
on  such  matters  as  on  a  stage3?    who  but  must  regard  him, 3  EP> 
when  he  pretends  to  name  God  and  speak  of  God,  but  as  thegncycL 
serpent  counselling  the  woman  ?  who,  on  reading  what  fol-  Epiph. 
lows  in  his  work,  but  must  discern  in  his  irreligious  doc-^"       3 
trine  that  error,  into  which  by  his  sophistries  the  serpent 
in  the  sequel  seduced  the  woman  ?  who  at  such  blasphemies 
is  not  transported  ?     The  heaven,  as  the  Prophet  says,  was  Jer.  2, 
astonished,  and  the  earth  shuddered  at  the  transgression  of1 
the  Law.     But  the  sun,  with  greater  horror  once,  impatient 
of  the  bodily  contumelies,  which  the  common  Lord  of  all 
voluntarily  endured  for  us,  turned    away,  and  recalling  his 
rays  made  that  day  sunless.     And  shall  not  all  human  kind 

n  Vid.  supr.  p.  96,  note  f.  xaraX^j  Father,  was  to  deny  that  He  was  in  the 
was  originally  a  Stoical  word,  and  even  Father,  i.  e.  the  doctrine  of  the  «ri£/- 
when  considered  perfect,  was,  properly  w^ws.  p.  95,  note  d.  or  to  main- 
speaking,  attributable  only  to  an  imper-  tain  that  He  was  a  distinct,  and  there- 
feet  being.  For  it  is  used  in  contrast  to  fore  a  created,  being.  On  the  other  hand 
the  Platonic  doctrine  of  Tbiett,  to  express  Scripture  asserts  that,  as  the  Holy 
the  hold  of  things  obtained  by  the  mind  Spirit  which  is  in  God,  "  searcheth  all 
through  the  senses ;  it  being  a  Stoical  things,  yea,  the  deep  things"  of  God, 
maxim,  nihil  esse  in  intellectu  quod  so  the  Son,  as  being  "  in  the  bosom  of 
non  fuerit  prius  in  sensu.  In  this  sense  the  Father,"  alone  "hath  declared 
it  is  also  used  by  the  Fathers,  to  mean  Him."  vid.  Clement.  Strom,  v.  12. 
real  and  certain  knowledge  after  inquiry,  And  thus  Athan.  speaking  of  Mark 
though  it  is  also  ascribed  to  Almighty  13,  32.  "  If  the  Son  is  in  the  Fa- 
God.  As  to  the  position  of  Arius,  ther,  and  the  Father  in  the  Son, 
since  we  are  told  in  Scripture  that  none  and  the  Father  knows  the  day  and 
"  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man  save  the  the  hour,  it  is  plain  that  the  Son  too, 
spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him,"  if  being  in  the  Father,  and  knowing  the 
Ajj-^.y  b?  an  exact  and  complete  know-  things  in  the  Father,  Himself  also 
ledge  of  the  object  of  contemplation,  knows  the  day  and  the  hour."  Orat. 
to  deny  that  the  Son  comprehended  the  iii.  44. 

188  A  Council's  decision  sufficient,  even  without  argument. 

Disc,  at    Arius's   blasphemies    be    struck    speechless,    and    stop 

*' their  ears,  and  shut  their  eyes,  to  escape  hearing  them  or 

seeing  their  author  ?  Rather,  will  not  the  Lord  Himself  have 
reason  to  denounce  men  so  irreligious,  nay,  so  unthank- 
ful, in  the  words  which  He  hath  already  uttered  by  the 

Hos.  7,  prophet  Hosea,  Woe  unto  them,  for  they  have  fled  from  Me; 
destruction  upon  them,  for  they  have  transgressed  against 
Me ;  though  I  have  redeemed  them,  yet  they  have  spoken 

v.  15.  lies  against  Me.  And  soon  after,  They  imagine  mischief 
against  Me ;  they  turn  away  to  nothing.  For  to  turn  away 
from  the  Word  of  God,  which  is,  and  to  fashion  to  themselves 
one  that  is  not,  is  to  fall  to  what  is  nothing.  For  this  was 

•  p.  49,  why  the  Ecumenical  *  Council,  when  Arius  thus  spoke,  cast 
him  from  the  Church,  and  anathematized  him,  as  impatient 
of  such  irreligion.  And  ever  since  has  Arius's  error  been 
reckoned  for  a  heresy  more  than  ordinary,  being  known  as 

2P-6>    Christ's  foe2,  and  harbinger3  of  Antichrist.     Though  then  so 

"p?i78,  great  a  condemnation  be  itself  of  special  weight  to  make  men 

ref.  i.  flee  fr0m  that  irreligious  heresy b,  as  I  said  above,  yet  since 
certain  persons  called  Christian,  either  in  ignorance  or  pre- 
tence, think  it  as  I  then  said,  little  different  from  the  Truth, 

4  P.  170, and  call  its  professors  Christians4;  proceed  we  to  put  some 
questions  to  them,  according  to  our  powers,  thereby  to  expose 
the  unscrupulousness  of  the  heresy.  Perhaps,  when  thus  en- 
countered, they  will  be  silenced,  and  flee  from  it,  as  from  the 
sight  of  a  serpent. 

b  And  so  Vigilius   of  the  heresies  hsereticisuntpronunciati,orthodoxorum 

about  the  Incarnation,  Etiamsi  in  erro-  securitati  sufficeret.    contr.  Eutych.  i. 

ris   eorum   destructionem  nulli  conde-  p.  494. 
rentur  libri,   hoc   ipsum   solum,   quod 



The  Arians  affect  Scripture  language,  but  their  doctrine  new,  as  well  as 
unscriptural.  Statement  of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  that  the  Son  is  proper 
to  the  Father's  substance,  and  eternal.  Restatement  of  Arianism  in 
contrast,  that  He  is  a  creature  with  a  beginning:  the  controversy  comes 
to  this  issue,  whether  one  whom  we  are  to  believe  in  as  God,  can  be  so 
in  name  only,  and  is  merely  a  creature.  What  pretence  then  for  being 
indifferent  in  the  controversy?  The  Arians  rely  on  state  patronage,  and 
dare  not  avow  their  tenets. 

1.  IF  then  the  use  of  certain  phrases  of  divine  Scripture  CHAP. 
changes,  in  their  opinion,  the  blasphemy  of  the  Thalia  into    ITL 
blessing,  of  course  they  ought  also  to  deny  Christ  with  the    ^' 
present  Jews,  when  they  see  how  they  study  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets;  perhaps  too  they  will  deny  the  Law1  and  the1  P- 130> 
Prophets  like  Manicheesa,  because  the  latter  read  some  portions 
of  the  Gospels.    If  such  bewilderment  and  empty  speaking  be 
from  ignorance,  Scripture  will  teach  them,  that  the  devil,  the 
author  of  heresies,  because  of  the  ill-savour  which  attaches  to 
evil,  borrows  Scripture  language,  as  a  cloak  wherewith  to  sow 
the  ground  with  his  own  poison,  and  to  seduce  the  simple.   Thus 
he  deceived  Eve ;   thus  he  framed  former  heresies ;  thus  he 
has  persuaded  Arius  at  this  time  to  make  a  show  of  speaking 
against  those  former  ones,  that  he  may  introduce  his  own 
without  observation.     And  yet,  after  all,  the  man  of  craft 
hath  not  escaped.     For  being  irreligious  towards  the  Word 
of  God,  he  lost  his  all  at  once2,  and  betrayed  to  all  men  his2  p.  2, 
ignorance  of  other  heresies  toob ;  and  having  not  a  particle  of 

•  Faustus,  in  August,  contr.  Faust,  them.  They  rejected  many  of  the  facts, 
ii.  1.  admits  the  Gospels,  (vid.  Beau-  e.  g.  our  Lord's  nativity,  circumcision, 
sohre  Manich.  t.  i.  p.  291,  &c.)  but  baptism,  temptation,  &c.  ibid,  xxxii.  6. 
denies  that  they  were  written  by  the  b  All  heresies  seem  connected  to- 
reputed  authors,  ibid,  xxxii.  2.  but  gether  and  to  run  into  each  other. 
nescioquibusSemi-judseis.ibid.xxxiii.3.  When  the  mind  has  embraced  one,  it 
Accordingly  they  thought  themselves  is  almost  certain  to  run  into  others, 
at  liberty  to  reject  or  correct  parts  of  apparently  the  most  opposite,  it  is 

190     Arianism  involved  misbelief  as  regards  all  doctrines. 

Disc,  truth  in  his  belief,  does  but  pretend  to  it.     For  how  can  he 

L_  speak  truth  concerning  the  Father,  who  denies  the  Son,  that 

reveals  concerning  Him  ?    or  how  can  he  be  orthodox  con- 
cerning the   Spirit,  while  he  speaks  profanely  of  the  Word 
that  supplies  the  Spirit  ?    and  who  will  trust  him  concerning 
the  Resurrection,  denying,    as    he   does,  Christ  for   us   the 
first-begotten  from  the  dead?     and  how  shall  he  not  err  in 
lir&tKM  respect  to  His  incarnate  presence1,  who  is  simply  ignorant 
rotjotf-    Q£  ^  gon's  genuilie  and  true  generation  from  the  Father  r 
For  thus,  the  former  Jews  also,  denying  the  Word,  and  say- 
ing, We  have  no  king  but  Ccesar,  were  forthwith  stripped  of 
all  they  had,  and  forfeited  the  light  of  the  Lamp,  the  odour 
of  ointment,  knowledge  of  prophecy,  and  the  Truth  itself;  till 
now  they  understand  nothing,  but  are  walking  as  in  darkness, 
p.  12,  jror  wno  was  ever  vet  a  hearer  of  such  a  doctrine2?  or  whence 

«.*.«  -,  * 

or  from  whom  did  the  abettors  and  hirelings0  of  the  heresy 

note  y 

quite  uncertain  which.  Thus  Arians 
were  a  reaction  from  Sabellians,  yet 
did  not  the  less  consider  than  they  that 
God  was  but  one  Person,  and  that 
Christ  was  a  creature,  supr.  p.  41,  note 
e.  Apollinaris  was  betrayed  into  his 
heresy  by  opposing  the  Arians,  yet  his 
heresy  started  with  the  tenet  in  which 
the  Arians  ended,  that  Christ  had  no 
human  soul.  His  disciples  became,  and 
even  naturally,  some  of  them  Sabellians, 
some  Arians.  Again,  beginning  with 
denying  our  Lord  a  soul,  he  came  to 
deny  Him  a  body,  like  the  Mani- 
chees  and  Docetffi.  The  same  pas- 
sages from  Athanasius  will  be  found 
to  refute  both  Eutychians  and  Nesto- 
rians,  though  diametrically  opposed  to 
each  other :  and  these  agreed  together, 
not  only  in  considering  nature  andperson 
identical, but, strange  to  say,  in  holding, 
and  the  Apollinarians  too,  that  our 
Lord's  manhood  existed  before  its  union 
with  Him,  which  is  the  special  heresy  of 
Nestorius.  Again,  the  Nestorians  were 
closely  connected  with  the  Sabellians 
and  Samosatenes,  and  the  latter  with  the 
Photinians  and  modern  Socinians.  And 
the  Nestorians  were  connected  with  the 
Pelagians ;  and  Aerius,  who  denied 
Episcopacy  and  prayers  for  the  dead 
with  the  Arians  ;  and  his  opponent  the 
Semi-arian  Eustathius  with  the  Encra- 
tites.  One  reason  of  course  of  this  pecu- 
liarity of  heresy  is,  that  when  the 
mind  is  once  unsettled,  it  may  fall  into 
any  error.  Another  is  that  it  is  heresy ; 

all  heresies  being  secretly  connected,  as 
in  temper,  so  in  certain  primary  princi- 
ples. And,  lastly,  the  Truth  only  is  a 
rm/doctrine,  and  therefore  stable ;  every 
thing  false  is  of  a  transitory  nature  and 
has  no  stay,  like  reflections  in  a 
stream,  one  opinion  continually  pass- 
ing into  another,  and  creations  being  but 
the  first  stages  of  dissolution.  Hence 
so  much  is  said  in  the  Fathers  of  ortho- 
doxy being  a  narrow  way.  Thus  S.  Gre- 
gory speaks  of  the  middle  and  "  royal" 
way.  Orat  32.  6.  also  Damasc.  contr. 
Jacob,  t.  1.  p.  398.  vid.  also  Leon.  Ep. 
85.  1.  p.  1051.  Ep.  129.  p.  1254.  "  levis- 
sima  adjectionecorrumpitur."  also  Serin. 
25.  1.  p.  83.  also  Vigil,  in  Eutych.  i. 
init.  Quasi  inter  duos  latrones  crucifigi- 
tur  Dominus,  &c.  Novat.  Trin.30.  vid. 
the  promise,  "  Their  ears  shall  hear 
a  word  behind  thee,  saying,  This  is 
the  way,  walk  ye  in  it,  when  ye  turn 
to  the  right  hand,  and  when  ye  turn  to 
the  left."  Is.  30,  21. 

c  ^ugrdoxet.  and  so  ziobes  rtjf  <ptXo%gt]- 
(Kar/af,  irifr.  §.  53.  He  mentions 
•r^offra.ffiuf  tp'iXuv,  §.  10.  And  so  S. 
Hilary  speaks  of  the  exemptions  from 
taxes  which  Constantius  granted  the 
Clergy  as  a  bribe  to  Arianize ; 
"  You  concede  taxes  as  Caesar,  thereby 
to  invite  Christians  to  a  denial ;  you 
remit  what  is  your  own,  that  we  may 
lose  what  is  God's."  contr.  Const. 
10.  And  again,  of  resisting  Constan- 
tius as  hostem  blandientem,  qui  non 
dorsa  ceedit,  sed  ventrem  palpat,  non 

What  comes  notfrom  the  Father  is  of  the  predicted  Apostasy.  191 

gain  it  ?  who  thus  expounded  to  them  when  they  were  at  CHAP. 
school1  ?  who  told  them,  "Abandon  the  worship  of  the  crea-  —  j-i_ 
tion,  and  then  draw  near  and  worship  a  creature  and  a  note  i.' 

workd?"  But  if  they  themselves  own  that  they  have  heard  it 
now  for^jhe^irj^jdrnej  how  can  they  deny  that  this  heresy  is  p.  84. 
foreign,  and  not  from  our  fathers2?  But  what  is  not  from*  p.  73, 
our  fathers,  but  has  come  to  light  in  this  day,  how  can  it  bej0^^ 
but  that  of  which  the  blessed  Paul  has  foretold,  that  in  the*i  l-2- 
latter  times  some  shall  depart  from  the  sound5  faith,  giving*  vyw 
heed  to  seducing  spirits  and  doctrines  of  devils,  in  the  hy-  s0crat. 
pocrisy  of  liars;  cauterized  in  their  own  conscience,  and*-?- 

ill.   J  * 

turning  from  the  truth*?  14. 

2.  For,  behold,  we  take  divine  Scripture,  and  thence  dis-  §.  9. 
course  with  freedom  of  the  religious  Faith,  and  set  it  up  as  a 
light  upon  its  candlestick,  saying  :  —  Very  Son  of  the  Father, 
natural  and  genuine,  proper  to  His  substance,  Wisdom  Only- 
begotten,  and  Very  and  Only  Word  of  God  is  He  ;  not  a 
creature  or  work,  but  an  offspring  proper  to  the  Father's  sub- 
stance. Wherefore  He  is  very  God,  existing  one  in  substance44  ' 
with  the  very  Father  ;  while  other  beings,  to  whom  He  said, 
/  said  ye  are  Gods,  had  this  grace  from  the  Father,  only  by 

proscribit  ad  \itatn,  sedditat  in  mortem,  the  Fathers  to  refer  to  the  Oriental 

mm  caput  gladio  desecat,  sed  animam  sects  of  the  early  centuries,  who  ful- 

auro  occidit.  ibid.  5.  vid.  Constant,  in  filled  one  or  other  of  those  conditions 

loc.  Liberius  says  the  same,  Theod.  which  it  specifies.  It  is  quoted  against 

Hist.  ii.  13.  And  S.  Gregory  Naz.  the  Marcionists  by  Clement.  Strom,  iii. 

speaks  of  ^o^ufevs  pZM.ovrt  f<X«Xg'-  6.  Of  the  Carpocratians  apparently, 

frov;.  Orat.  21.21.  On  the  other  hand,  Iren.  User.  i.  25.  Epiph.  Haer.  27.  5. 

Ep.  /Eg.  22.  Athan.  contrasts  the  Arians  Of  the  Yalentinians,  Epiph.  Hser.  31. 

with  the  Meletians,  as  not  influenced  by  34.  Of  the  Montanists  and  others, 

secular  views.  But  it  is  obvious  that  ibid.  48.  8.  Of  the  Saturnilians  (ac- 

there  were,  as  was  natural,  two  classes  cording  to  Huet.)  Origen  in  Matt.  xiv. 

of  men  in  the  heretical  party  ;  —  the  16.  Of  apostolic  heretics,  Cyril.  Cat. 

fanatical  class  who  began  the  heresy  iv.  27.  Of  Marcionites,  Valentinians, 

and  were  its  real  life,  such  as  Arius,  and  Manichees,  Chrysost.  de  Virg.  5. 

,  and  afterwards  the  Anomoeans,  in  whom  Of  Gnostics  and  Manichees,  Theod. 

misbelief  was  a  u  mania;"  and  the  Eu-  Hser.  ii.  praef.  Of  Encratites,  ibid.  v. 

sebians,  who  cared  little  for  a  theory  of  fin.  Of  Eutyches,  Ep.  Anon.  190.  (apud 

doctrine  or  consistency  of  profession,  Garner.  Diss.v.  Theod.  p.  901.)  Pseudp- 

compared  with  their  own  aggrandize-  Justin  seems  to  consider  it  fulfilled  in 

ment.  With  these  must  be  counted  the  Catholics  of  the  fifth  century,  as 

numbers,  who  conformed  to  Arianism  being  Anti-pelagians.  Qusest.  22.  yid. 

lest  they  should  suffer  temporal  loss.  Bened.  note  in  loc.  Besides  Athanasius, 

d  vid.  p.  3,  note  f.fin.  This  consider-  no  early  author  occurs  to  the  writer  of 

ation,  as  might  be  expected,  is  insisted  this,  by  whom  it  is  referred  to  the  Arians, 

on  by  the  Fathers,  vid.  Cyril.  Dial.  iv.  except  S.  Alexander's  Letter  ap.  Socr. 

p.  51  1,  &c.  v.  p.  566.  Greg.  Naz.  40.  i.  6.  and,  if  he  may  hazard  the  conjec- 

42.  Hil.  Trin.  viii.  28.  Ambros.  de  ture,  there  is  much  in  that  letter  like 

fid.  i.  n.  69  and  104.  Athan.'s  own  writing. 

e  This  passage  is  commonly  taken  by 

192       Contrast  between  Scripture  doctrine  and  Arian. 

Disc,  participation1  of  the  Word,  through  the  Spirit.  For  He  is 
p-^ — the  expression  of  the  Father's  Person,  and  Light  from  Light, 
De6cr.  and  Power,  and  very  Image  of  the  Father's  substance.  For 

to°  ^e  kord  has  saic^  ^  ^rt*  '*a*'*  ***w  ^>  *rt^*  5mz 
Father.     And  He  ever  was  and  is,  and  never  was  not. 

p* 151'   For  the  Father  being  everlasting,  His  Word  and  His  Wisdom 

2  P-  25>  must  be  everlasting 2. 

3.  On  the  other  hand,  what  have  these  persons  to  shew  us 
from  the  infamous  Thalia  ?  Or,  first  of  all,  let  them  study  it 
themselves,  and  copy  the  tone  of  the  writer;  at  least  the 
mockery  which  they  will  encounter  from  others  may  instruct 
them  how  low  they  have  fallen ;  and  then  let  them  proceed  to 
explain  themselves.  For  what  can  they  say  from  it,  but  that 
"  God  was  not  always  a  Father,  but  became  so  afterwards ; 
the  Son  was  not  always,  for  He  was  not  before  His  genera- 
tion ;  He  is  not  from  the  Father,  but  He,  as  others,  has  come 
into  subsistence  out  of  nothing;  He  is  not  proper  to  the 
Father's  substance,  for  He  is  a  creature  and  work  ?"  And 
"  Christ  is  not  very  God,  but  He,  as  others,  was  made  God 
by  participation ;  the  Son  has  not  exact  knowledge  of  the 
Father,  nor  does  -the  Word  see  the  Father  perfectly;  and 
neither  exactly  understands  nor  knows  the  Father.  He  is 
not  the  veiy  and  only  Word  of  the  Father,  but  is  in  name 
only  called  Word  and  Wisdom,  and  is  called  by  grace  Son 
and  Power.  He  is  not  unalterable,  as  the  Father  is,  but 
alterable  in  nature,  as  the  creatures,  and  He  comes  short  of 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  Father  for  comprehension."  Wonderful 
this  heresy, not  plausible  even,  but  making  speculations  against 
Him  that  is,  that  He  be  not,  and  every  where  putting  forward 
blasphemy  for  blessing !  Were  any  one,  after  inquiring  into 
both  sides,  to  be  asked,  whether  of  the  two  he  would  follow 
in  faith,  or  whether  of  the  two  spoke  fitly  of  God, — or  rather 
let  them  say  themselves,  these  abetters  of  irreligion,  what,  if 
a  man  be  asked  concerning  God,  (for  the  Word  was  God,)  it 
were  fit  to  answer f.  For  from  this  one  question  the  whole 
case  on  both  sides  may  be  determined,  what  is  fitting  to 
say, — He  was,  or  He  was  not ;  always,  or  before  His  birth  ; 

£  That  is,  "  Let  them  tell  us,  is  it  such  is  the  Word,  viz.  that  He  was 
right  to  predicate  this  or  to  predicate  from  eternity  or  was  created,"  &c.  &c. 
that  of  God,  (of  One  who  is  God,)  for 

The  Arians  dared  not  avoiv  their  tenets.  193 

eternal,  or  from  this  and  from  then ;  true,  or  by  adoption,  and  CHAP. 
from  participation  and  in  idea1;   to  call  Him  one  of  things    IUt' 
generated,  or  to  unite  Him  to  the  Father ;  to  consider  Him  i^C«y, 
unlike  the  Father  in  substance,  or  like  and  proper  to  Him ;  y|d- 

TT.  Orat.  ii. 

a  creature,  or  Him  through  whom  the  creatures  were  gene-  $.  38. 
rated;  that  He  is  the  Father's  Word,  or  that  there  is  another 
Word  beside  Him,  and  that  by  this  other  He  was  generated, 
and  by  another  Wisdom;  and  that  He  is  only  named  Wisdom 
and  Word,  and  is  become  a  partaker  of  this  Wisdom,  and 
second  to  it  ? 

4.  Which  of  the  two  theologies  sets  forth  our  Lord  Jesus  §.  10. 
Christ  as  God  and  Son  of  the  Father,  this  with  which  ye  have 
burst  forth,  or  that  which  we  have  spoken  and  maintain  from 
the  Scriptures  ?  If  the  Saviour  be  not  God,  nor  Word,  nor  Son, 
you  shall  have  leave  to  say  what  you  will,  and  so  shall  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  present  Jews.     But  if  He  be  Word  of  the 
Father  and  true  Son,  and  God  from  God,  and  over  all  blessed  Rom.  9, 
for  ever,  is  it  not  becoming  to  obliterate  and  blot  out  those 
other  phrases  and  that  Arian  Thalia,  as  but  a  pattern  of  evil, 
a  store  of  all  irreligion,  into  which,  whoso  falls,  knoweth  not  Prov.  9, 
that  the  dead  are  there,  and  that  her   guests  are  in  the 
depths  of  hell.     This  they  know  themselves,  and  in  their 
craft  they  conceal  it,  not  having  the  courage  to  speak  out, 
but  uttering  something  else2.     For  should  they  speak,  a  con-2 p.  10, 
demnation   would   follow;    and    should   they  be   suspected, p^^ 
proofs  from  Scripture  will  be  cast3  at  them  from  every  side.  Jote  8- 
Wherefore,  in  their   craft,  as  children   of  this  world,  after  note  f.' 
feeding  their  so-called  lamp  from  the  wild  olive,  and  fearing 
lest  it  should  soon  be  quenched,  (for  it  is  said,  the  light  o/'Job  18, 
the  wicked  shall  be  put  out,)  they  hide  it  under  the  bushel4  of4Ep.^g> 
their  hypocrisy,  and  make  a  different  profession,  and  boast  of 18- 
patronage  of  friends  and  authority  of  Constantius5,  that  what5  P.  5, 
with  their  hypocrisy  and  their  boasts,  those  who   come  to™^ 
them   may  be  kept  from  seeing  how  foul   their  heresy  is. note  c- 
Is  it  not  detestable  even  in  this,  that  it  dares  not  speak  out, 
but  is  kept  hid  by  its  own  friends,  and  fostered  as  serpents 
are?    for  from  what  sources  have   they  got  together6  these 6«*«0/- 
words  ?  or  from  whom  have  they  received  what  they  venture  f  "'"^ 
to  say7?    Not  any  one  man  can  they  specify  who  has  supplied  f-  ^ 
it.     For  who  is  there  in  all  mankind,  Greek  or  Barbarian,  note  y! 


194         Arianism  not  in  Scripture,  but  from  Satan. 

who  ventures  to  rank  among  creatures  One  who  he  confesses 
the  while  to  be  God,  and  says,  that  He  was  not  till  He  was 
made  ?  or  who  is  there,  who  to  the  God  in  whom  he  has 
Matt,  put  faith,  refuses  to  give  credit,  when  He  says,  Iliis  is  My 
Beloved  Son,  on  the  pretence  that  He  is  not  a  Son,  but  a 
creature  ?  rather,  such  madness  would  rouse  an  universal 
indignation.  Nor  does  Scripture  afford  them  any  pretext ; 
for  it  has  been  often  shewn,  and  it  shall  be  shewn  now,  that 
their  doctrine  is  alien  to  the  divine  oracles.  Therefore,  since 
all  that  remains  is  to  say  that  from  the  devil  came  their 

1  P-  5>    mania,  (for  of  such  opinions  he  alone  is  sower  *,)  proceed  we 

to  resist  him  ; — for  with  him  is  our  real  conflict,  and  they  are 
but  instruments ; — that,  the  Lord  aiding  us,  and  the  enemy, 
as  he  is  wont,  being  overcome  with  arguments,  they  may  be 
put  to  shame,  when  they  see  him  without  resource  who  sowed 
this  heresy  in  them,  and  may  learn  though  late,  that,  as  being 

2  P-  ?9?  Arians,  they  are  not  Christians2. 

ref.  4, 



These  attributes,  being  the  points  in  dispute,  are  first  proved  by  direct  texts 
of  Scripture.  Concerning  the  "  eternal  power"  of  God  in  Rom.  i.  20. 
which  is  shewn  to  mean  the  Son.  Remarks  on  the  Arian  formula, 
"  Once  the  Son  was  not,"  its  supporters  not  daring  to  speak  of  "  a  time 
when  the  Son  was  not." 

1.  AT  his  suggestion  then  ye  have  maintained  and  ye  think,  CHAP. 
that  "  there  was  once  when  the  Son  was  not ;"  this  is  the  first    IY' 
cloke  of  your  views  of  doctrine  which  has  to  be  stripped  off.  Say  *' 
then  what  was  once  when  the  Son  was  not,  O  slanderous  and 
irreligious  men a  ?    If  ye  say  the  Father,  your  blasphemy  is  but 
greater ;  for  it  is  impious  to  say  that  He  was  "  once,"  or  to 
signify  Him  by  the  word  "  once."     For  He  is  ever,  and  is 
now,  and  as  the  Son  is,  so  is  He,  and  is  Himself  He  that  is, 

and  Father  of  the  Son.  But  if  ye  say  that  the  Son  was  once, 
when  He  Himself  was  not,  the  answer  is  foolish  and  un- 
meaning. For  how  could  He  both  be  and  not  be  ?  In  this 
difficulty,  you  can  but  answer,  that  there  was  a  time,  when  the 
Word  was  not;  for  your  veiy  adverb  "  once"  naturally  signifies 
this.  And  your  other,  "  The  Son  was  not  before  His  genera- 
tion," is  equivalent  to  saying,  "  There  was  once  when  He 
was  not,"  for  both  the  one  and  the  other  signify  that  there  is 
a  time  before  the  Word. 

2.  Whence  then  this  your  discovery  ?    Why  do  ye,  as  the  Ps.  2,  i 
heathen,  rage,  and  imagine  vain  words  against  the  Lord  and 

a  Athan.  observes  that  this  formula  ever,  that  it  was  the  Father  who  "  was'' 

of  the   Arians   is  a   mere   evasion  to  before   the    Son  ?     This   was    true,   if 

escape  using  the   word  "  time."   vid.  "  before"    was    taken,    not    to    imply 

also  Cyril.  Thesaur.   iv.   pp.   19,    20.  time,    but    origination    or    beginning. 

Else  let  them  explain, — "  There  was,"  And  in  this  sense  the  first  verse  of  St. 

what  "  when  the   Son   was  not?"    or  John's  Gospel  may  be  interpreted  "  In 

what  was  before  the  Son?    since  He  the   Beginning,"   or   Origin,   i.    e.   in 

Himself  was  before  all  times  and  ages,  the  Father  "  was  the  Word." 

which  He  created  (supr,  p.  30,  note  n.)  Athan.  himself  understands  that  text, 

Thus,  if  "  when"  be  a  word  of  time,  Orat.  iv.  $.  1.  vid.  also  Orat.  iii.  $.  9. 

He  it  is  who  was  {l  when"  He  was  not,  Nyssen.   contr.    Eunom.    iii.   p.    106. 

which  is  absurd.    Did  they  mean,  how-  Cyril.  Thesaur.  32.  p.  312. 

196  Text 8  for  the  eternity  of  the  Son. 

Disc,  against  His  Christ?    for  no  holy  Scripture  has  used  such 
— - —  language  of  the  Saviour,  but  rather  "  always"  and  "  eternal" 
John  i,  and  "  co-existent  always  with  the  Father."  For,  In  the  begin- 
ning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  God.     And  in  the  Apocalypse  he b  thus  speaks ; 
Apoc.i,  Who  is  and  who  was  and  who  is  to  come.     Now  who  can 
rob   "  who  is"  and  "  who   was"  of  eternity  ?"   This  too  in 
confutation  of  the  Jews  hath  Paul  written  in  his  Epistle  to 
Rom.  9,  the  Romans,  Of  whom  as  concerning  the  Jlesh  Christ,  who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever;    while  silencing  the  Greeks, 
Rom.  i,he  has  said,  The  invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of 
Ihe  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made,  even  His  eternal  Power  and  Godhead ;  and  what 

1  Cor.    the  Power  of  God  isc,  he  teaches  us  elsewhere  himself,  Christ 
1 '  24'     the  Power  of  God  and  the  Wisdom  of  God.     Surely  in  these 

words  he  does  not  designate  the  Father,  as  ye  often  whisper 
one  to  another,  affirming  that  the  Father  is  His  eternal 
power.  This  is  not  so ;  for  he  says  not,  "  God  Himself  is 
the  power,"  but  "  His  is  the  power."  Very  plain  is  it  to 
all  that  "His"  is  not  "He;"  yet  not  something  alien  but 
rather  proper  to  Him. 

2  Cor.        3.  Study  too  the  context  and  turn  to  the  Lord;    now  the 
3,16.17.  r  tjiat  Spirit d;  and  ye  will  see  that  it  is  the  Son  who 

b  ruli,  X&yti.     Our  translation  of  the  plied  to  it,  vid.  supr.  p.  101,  and  Orat.  ii. 

New  Testament  renders  such  phrases  §.  37. 

similarly,  "  he."  S^Xiyn"  wherefore  he  d  g.  Athanasius  observes,  Serap.  i, 

saith,"  but  in  the  margin  "  it."  Eph.  v.  4 — 7.  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  never  in 

14.  ttyxt  KI£I  TW$  \(&opns  ovrc*.  "  he  Scripture  called  simply  "  Spirit"  with- 

spake."  Heb.  iv.  4.  And  we  may  take  in  out  the  addition  *'  of  God"  or  "  of  the 

explanation  "As  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  Father"  or  "  from  Me"  or  of  the  ar- 

To-day,"&c.  Heb.iii.7.  Orunderstand  tide,  or  of  "  Holy,"  or  "  Comforter/" 

with  Athan. S/aX$ygi<X{y&>yonauX«.infr.  or  "  of  truth,"  or  unless  He  has  been 

$.  57.  us  tJ-ri*  o  'ladvvns.  Orat.  iii.  §.  30.  spoken  of  just  before.   Accordingly  this 

vid.  also  iv.  §.  31.     On  the  other  hand,  text  is  understood  of  the  third  Person 

11  as  the  Scripture  hath  said,"  John  vii.  in  the  Holy  Trinity  by  Origen,  contr. 

42.  "  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?"  Rom.  70. Basil  deSp.  S.  n.52.  Pseudo- 

iv.  3.  "that  the  Scripture  saith  is  vain,"  Athan.     de    comm.    ess.   6.     On   the 

James   iv.   5.      And   so   Athan.    oTSsv  other  hand,  the  word  #vivf*»,  "  Spirit," 

•A  Gilo.  yt>a.<pn  Xsyooffa.  infr.  §.  56.  'idos  vy  is   used    more    or    less    distinctly   for 

Sun  >y^,py  .  .  tfitja-i.  Orat.  iv.  $•  27.  *.i>yst  our  Lord's  Divine  Nature,  whether  in 

a  y^apjj.  de  deer.  §.  22.  0j?<m  «  <y^n.  itself  or  as  incarnate,  in  Rom.  i.  4. 

de  Syn.  §.  52.  1  Cor.  xv.  45.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Hebr.  ix. 

c  Athan.  has  so  interpreted  this  text,  14.  1   Pet.  iii.  18.  John  vi.  63,  &c. 

supr.  p.  149.  vid.  Justinian's  Comment  Indeed  the  early  Fathers  speak  as  if 

for  its  various  interpretations.     It  was  the  "  Holy  Spirit"  which  came  down 

either  a  received  interpretation,  or  had  upon  S.  Mary  might  be  considered  the 

been  adduced  at  Niceea, for  Asterius  had  Word.     E.  g.    Tertullian  against  the 

some  years  before  these  Discourses  re-  Valentinians,  "  If  the  Spirit  of  God 

The  So^  is  the  Father's  Eternal  Power  and  Godhead.  197 

is  signified.     For  after  making  mention  of  the  creation,  he  CHAP. 
naturally  speaks  of  the  Framer's  Power  as  seen  in  it,  which    IV> 

"  &        1  O 

Power,   I  say,,  is   the  Word  of  God,  by  whom  all  things^' 
were   made.      If  indeed   the  creation  is  sufficient  of  itself 
alone,  without  the  Son,  to  make  God  known,  see  that  you 
'fall   not  into  the   further   opinion  that  without  the   Son  it 
came  to  be.     But  if  through  the  Son  it  came   to  be,  and 
in  Him  all  things  consist,  it  must  follow  that  he  who  con-  Col.  i , 
templates  the   creation    rightly,  is    contemplating   also   the 
Word  who  framed  it,  and  through  Him  begins  to  apprehend 
the  Father1.      And   if,  as   the    Saviour   also    says,   No   one1  vid. 
knoweth  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  lie  to  whom  the  Son  Gent! 
shall  reveal  Him,  and  if  on  Philip's  asking,  Shew  us  the4^^- 
Father,  He  said  not,  ic  Behold  the  creation,"  but,  He  that  27. 
hath  seen,  Me,  hath  seen  the  Father,  reasonably  doth  Paul, j[olm14' 
while  accusing  the  Greeks  of  contemplating  the  harmony  and 
order  of  the  creation  without  reflecting  on  the  Framing  Word 
within  it;  (for  the  creatures  witness  to  their  own  Framer;) 
and  wishing  that  through  the  creation  they  might  apprehend 
'the  true   God,  and  abandon  their  worship  of  it,  reasonably 
'hath  He  said,  His  eternal  Power   and   Godhead,  thereby  Kom.  J, 
signifying  the  Son. 

4.  And  whereas  the  sacred  writers  say,  "  Who  exists  before 
the  ages,"  and  By  whom  He  made  the  ages,  they  thereby  jjeb.  i 
as  clearly  preach  the  eternal  and  everlasting  being  of  the  Son, 2- 
even   while   they   are   designating   God  Himself.     Thus,  if 
Esaias  says,  The  Everlasting  God,  the  Creator  of  the  ends  is.  40, 
of  the  earth ;    and  Susanna  said,  O  Everlasting  God;    and  28< 

Sus.  42. 

did  not  descend  into  the  womb  to  par-  Spiritus  Sanctus  est.  Past.  iii.  5.  n.  5. 

take  in  flesh  from  the  womb,  why  did  The  same  use  of  "  Spirit"  for  the  Word 

He  descend  at  all?"  de  earn.  Chr.  19.  or  Godhead  of  the  Word,  is  also  found 

vid.  also  ibid.  5  and  14.  contr.  Prax.  in  Tatian.  adv.  Gra?c.  7.  Athenag.  Leg. 

26.  Just.  Apol.  i.  33.  Iren.  Hser.  v.  1.  lO.Theoph.  ad  Autol.ii  10.  Iren.  Hair. 

Cypr.  Idol.  Van.  6.  (p.  19.  Oxf.  Tr.)  iv.  36.  Tertull.  Apol.  23.  Lact.  Inst. 

Lactant.  Instit.  iv.  12.  vid.  also  Hilar.  iv.  6.  8.   Hilar.  Trin.  ix.  3.  and  14. 

Trin.  ii.  27.  Athan.  xdyos  Iv  ™  rttufutrt  Eustath.  apud  Theod.  Eran.  iii.  p.  235. 

sVxaTTs  TO  ffuftx.  Scrap,  i.  31  fin.  iv  <nj)  Athan.  de  Incarn.  22.  (if  it  be  Athan. 's) 

\iyof   vv  ro  yfvtvfjLet.  ibid.  iii.  6.     And  contr.  Apoll.  i.  8.  Apollinar.  ap.  Theod. 

more  distinctly  even  as  late  as  S.  Max-  Eran.i.p.  71.  and  the  Apollinarists  pas- 

imus,  avrov  civrt  <r*o£eis  ffvXXufiovirix  <rov  sim.  Greg.Naz.Ep.  101. ad  Cledon.p.85. 

A.«V»v,  xsxvnxi.  t.  2.  p.  309.     The  ear-  Ambros.tncarn. 63. Severian.ap. Theod. 

liest  ecclesiastical    authorities   are   S.  Eran.ii.p.167.  Vid.  Marc.ii.8. 

Ignatius  ad  Smyrn.  init.  and  S.  Hernias  Bull.  Def.  F.  N.  i.  2.  $.5.  Coustant. 

(even  though  his  date  were  A.D.  150.)  Prgcf.  in  Hilar.  57,  &c.   Montfaucon 

who   also  says  plainly,  Filius   autem  in  Athan.  Serap.  iv.  19. 

198  Further  texts  for  the  eternity  of  the  Son. 

Disc.  Baruch  wrote,  /  will  cry  unto  the  Everlasting  in  my  days, 

— —  and  shortly  after,  My  hope  is  in  the  Everlasting,  that  He 

20.  22!  will  save  you,  and  joy  is  come  unto  me  from  the  Holy  One; 

yet  forasmuch  as  the  Apostle,  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  says, 

Hebr.     Who  being  the  radiance  of  His  glory  and  the  Expression  of 

p'afoo   His  Person  ;  and  David  too  in  the  eighty -ninth  Psalm,  And 

the  brightness  of  the  Lord  he  upon  us,  and,  In  Thy  Light 

9.       '  shall  we  see  Light,  who  has  so  little  sense  as  to  doubt  of  the 

i  supr.    eternity  of  the  Son1  ?  for  when  did  man  see  light  without  the 

5|* 20>  brightness   of  its   radiance,  that   he   may  say  of  the   Son, 

"  There   was   once,  when   He  was   not,"    or   "  Before  His 

generation  He  was  not." 

5.  And  the  words  addressed  to  the  Son  in  the  hundred 

Ps.  143,  and  forty-fourth  Psalm,  Thy  kingdom  is  a  kingdom  of  all 

ages,  forbid  any  one  to  imagine  any  interval  at  all  in  which 

the  Word  did  not  exist.     For  if  every  interval  is  measured 

2«/«y«»  by  ages,  and  of  all  the  ages2  the  Word  is  King  and  Maker, 

therefore,  whereas  no  interval  at  all  exists  prior  to  Hime,  it 

3  uluviat  were  madness  to  say, "  There  was  once  when  the  Everlasting3 

was  not,"  and  "  From  nothing  is  the  Son." 

John          6.  And  whereas  the  Lord  Himself  says,  /  am  the  Truth,  not 

John      "  I  became  the  Truth  ;"  but  always,  /  am, — 1  am  the  Shep- 

John4    nerd, — /  am  the  Light, — and  again,  Call  ye  Me  not,  Lord 

8, 12.     and  Master  ?  and  ye  call  Me  well,  for  so  I  am,  who,  hearing 

I3f°3.  such  language   from  God,  and  Wisdom,  and  Word  of  the 

Father,  speaking  of  Himself,  will  any  longer  hesitate  about 

its  truth,  and  not  forthwith  believe  that  in  the  phrase  /  am, 

is  signified  that  the  Son  is  eternal  and  unoriginate  ? 

§.  13.       7.  It  is  plain  then  from  the  above  that  the  Scriptures  declare 

the  Son's  eternity ;  it  is  equally  plain  from  what  follows  that 

the  Arian  phrases  "  He  was  not,"  and  "  before"  and  "  when," 

are  in  the  same  Scriptures  predicated  of  creatures.     Moses, 

for  instance,  in  his  account  of  the  generation  of  our  system, 

Gen.  2,  says,  And  every  plant  of  the  field,  before  it  was  in  the  earth, 


e  Vid.  p.  30,  note  n.     The  subject  is  Angels.   This  had  been  a  philosophical 

treated  at  length  in  Greg.  Nyss.  contr.  distinction,    Timseus   says,   tixut    ttrn 

Eunom.  i.   t.  2.    Append,  p.  93— 101.  x{bot  *%  «yi»w$w  #£«»«,"&  alum  fava.- 

vid.  also  Arnbros.  de  Fid.  i.  8—11.    As  •yoetoofut.  vicl.  also  Fhilon.  Quod  Deus 

time  measures  the    material  creation,  Immut.   6.   Euseb.   Laud.  C.   p.  501. 

so  "  ages"  were  considered  to  measure  Naz.  Or.  38.  8. 
the    immaterial,    as    the    duration    of 

Scripture  uses  "  was  not  before"  of  creatures.       199 

and  every  herb  of  the  field  before  it  grew ;  for  the  Lord  God  CHAP. 
had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth,  and  there  was  not  —IY'  . 
a  man  to  till  the  ground.     And  in  Deuteronomy,  When  the'Deut. 
Most  High  divided  to  the  nations.    And  the  Lord  said  in  His  2'  8* 
own  Person1,  If  ye  loved  Me,  ye  would  rejoice  because  I  said,1^  «*«• 
/  go  unto   the  Father,  for  My  Father  is  greater  than  /.j^ 
And  now  I  have  told  you  before  it  come  to  pass,  that  when  it  14> 28- 
is  come  to  pass,  ye  might  believe.     And  concerning'  the  crea- 
tion He   says   by  Solomon,  Or  ever  the   earth   was,  when  Prov.  8, 
there  were  no  depths^  I  was   brought  forth ;    when  there23' 
were  no  fountains  abounding  with  water.    Before  the  moun- 
tains were   settled,  before  the  hills,  was  I  brought  forth. 
And  Before  Abraham  ivas,  I  am.     And  concerning  Jeremias  John 
He  says,  Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  womb,  I  knew  thee.  j'e^8j'  5 
And  David  in  the  Psalm  says,  Before  the  mountains  werePs.90,1. 
brought  forth,  or  ever  the  earth  and  the  world  were  made, 
Thou  art   God  from  everlasting  and  world  without  end. 
And  in  Daniel,  Susanna  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice  and$u*.42, 
said,  O  everlasting  God,  that  knowest  the  secrets,  and  knowest 
all  things  before  they  be.     Thus  it  appeal's  that  the  phrases 
"  once  was  not,"  and  "  before  it  came  to  be,"  and  "  when," 
and  the  like,  belong  to  things  generate  and  creatures,  which 
come  out  of  nothing,  but  are  alien  to  the  Word.     But  if  such 
terms  are  used  in  Scripture  of  things  generate,  but  "  ever"  of 
the  Word,  it  follows,  O  ye  God's  enemies,  that  the  Son  did  not 
come  out  of  nothing,  nor  is  in  the  number  of  generated  things 
at  all,  but  is  the  Father's  Image  and  Word  eternal,  never  having 
not  been,  but  being  ever,  as  the  eternal  Radiance2  of  a  Light2  p.  39, 
which  is  eternal.     Why  imagine  then  times  before  the  Son  ? nc 
or  wherefore  blaspheme  the  Word  as  after  times,  by  whom 
even  the  ages  were  made3?   for  how  did  time  or  age  at  all3p. los, 
subsist  when  the  Word,  as  you  say,  had  not  appeared,  through 
whom  all  things  w&re  made  and  without  whom  not  one  things, 
was  made  ?  Or  why,  when  you  mean  time,  do  you  not  plainly 
say,  "  a  time  was  when  the  Word  was  not  ?"  but  you  drop 
the  word  "  time"  to  deceive  the  simple,  while  you  do  not  at 
all  conceal  your  own  feeling,  nor,  even  if  you  did,  could  you 
escape  discovery.     For  you  still  simply  mean  times,  when 
you  say,  "  There  was   when  He  was  not,"  and  "  He  was 
not  before  His  generation." 

CHAP.  V. 


Objecti on,  that  the  Son's  eternity  makes  Him  co-ordinate  with  the  Father, 
introduces  the  subject  of  His  Divine  Sonship,  as  a  second  proof  of  His 
eternity.  The  word  Son  is  introduced  in  a  secondary,  but  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  a  real  sense.  Since  all  things  partake  of  the  Father  in  partaking 
of  the  Son,  He  is  the  whole  participation  of  the  Father,  that  is,  He  is 
the  Son  by  nature ;  for  to  be  wholly  participated  is  to  beget. 

Disc.       1.  WHEN  these  points  are  thus  proved,  their  profaneness 
goes  further.    "If  there  never  was,  when  the  Son  was  not,"  say 

*  they,  "but  He  is  eternal,  and  co-exists  with  the  Father,  call 
Him  no  more  the  Father's  Son,  but  brother3."     O  insensate 
and  contentious  1    For  if  we  said  only  that  He  was  eternally 
with  the  Father,  and  riot  His  Son,  their  pretended  scruple  would 
have  some  plausibility;  but  if,  while  we  say  that  He  is  eternal, 
we  also  confess  Him  to  be  Son  from  the  Father,  how  can  He  that 
is  begotten  be  considered  brother  of  Him  who  begets  ?    And 
if  our  faith  is  in  Father  and  Son,  what  brotherhood  is  there 
between  them  ?    and  how  can  the  Word  be  called  brother  of 
Him  whose  Word  He  is  ?     This  is  not  an  objection  of  men 
really  ignorant,  for  they  comprehend  how  the  truth  lies ;  but 
it  is  a  Jewish  pretence,  and  that  from  those  who,  in  Solomon's 

Prov.     words,  through  desire  separate  themselves  from  the  truth. 
18' 1<     For  the  Father  and  the  Son  were  not  generated  from  some 

•  via.  de  pre-existing  origin1,  that  we  may  account  Them  brothers,  but 

Syn.  §, 

152  a  That  this  was  an  objection  urged  Anomoean  arguments  as  he  heard  them 
by  Eunomius,  has  already  been  men-  reported,  vid.  de  Syn.  1.  c.  where  he 
tioned  from  S.  Cyril,  supr.  p.  151,  note  says,  "  they  say,  a*  you  have  written." 
z.  It  is  implied  also  in  the  Apology  of  §.  51.  'Avoptio;  XKT  oltrietv  is  mentioned 
the  former,  §.  24.  and  in  Basil,  contr.  infr.§.!7.  As  the  Arians  here  object  that 
Eunom.  ii.  28.  Aetius  was  in  Alex-  the  First  and  Second  Persons  of  the 
andria  with  George  of  Cappadocia,  Holy  Trinity  are  a3iAi«2,  so  did  they 
A.D.  356—8.  and  Athan.  wrote  these  say  the  same  in  the  course  of  the  con- 
Discourses  in  the  latter  year,  as  the  troversy  of  the  Second  and  Third,  vid. 
de  Syn.  at  the  end  of  the  next.  Ifc  is  Athan.  Scrap,  i.  15.  iv.  2. 
probable  then  that  he  is  alluding  to  the 

Oar  Lord  eternal,  because  the  Son. 


the  Father  is  the  Origin  of  the  Son  and  begat  Him ;  and  the  CHAP. 

Father  is  Father,  and  not  the  Son  of  any ;  and  the  Son  is  Son, 

and  not  brother. 

2.  Further,  if  He  is  called  the  eternal  offspring11  of  the  Father, 
He  is  rightly  so  called.     For  never  was  the  substance  of  the 
Father  imperfect !,  that  what  is  proper  to  it  should  be  added1  ««/.& 
afterwards2;  nor,  as  man  from  man,  has  the  Son  been  be- 8  «*•'«•««- 
gotten,  so  as  to  be  later  than  His  Father's  existence,  but  He  vjd!?p. 
is  God's  offspring,  and  as  being  proper  Son  of  God,  who  is3^  note 
ever,  He  exists  eternally.     For,  whereas  it  is  proper  to  men 
to  beget  in  time,  from  the  imperfection  of  their  nature3,  God's3  infr. 
offspring  is  eternal,  for  His  nature  is  ever  perfect0.     If  thenjupr> 
He  is  not  a  Son,  but  a  work  made  out  of  nothing,  they  have  p- 19, 
but  to  prove  it ;  and  then  they  are  at  liberty,  as  if  speculating 
about  a  creature,  to  cry  out,  "  There  was  once  when  He  was 

In  other  words,  by  the  Divine 
is  not  meant  an  act  but  an  eter- 
nal and  unchangeable  fact,  in  the  Divine 
Essence.  Arius,  not  admitting  this, 
objected  at  the  outset  of  the  contro- 
versy to  the  phrase  "  always  Father, 
Eunomius  argues  that,  "  if  the  Son  is  co- 
eternal  with  the  Father,  the  Father  was 
never  such  in  act,  mgyw ,  but  was  K^yos ." 
Cyril.  Thesaur.  v.  p.  41.  S.  Cyril  an- 
swers tba.t  works,  igya,  are  made  ?|«^i», 
from  without ;  but  that  our  Lord,  as  St. 
Athanasius  here  says,  is  neither  a 
"  work"  nor  "  from  without."  And 
hence  he  says  elsewhere  that,  while 
men  are  fathers  first  in  posse  then 
in  act,  God  is  ^uvapti  TI  xcti  itipytia 
vct7ri£.  Dial.  2.  p.  458.  (vid.  supr.  p.  65. 
note  m.)  Victorinus  in  like  manner  says, 
that  God  is  potentia  et  actione  Deus 
sed  in  seterna. ;  Adv.  Ar.  i.  p.  202.  and 
he  quotes  S.  Alexander,  speaking  ap- 
parently in  answer  to  Arius,  of  a  sem- 
per generans  generatio.  And  Arius 
scoffs  at  aifytvvris  and  uysviwreyivwi. 
Theod.  Hist.  i.  4.  p.  749.  And  Origen 
had  said,  o  trurn^  ««i  ymara/.  ap.  Routh. 
Reliq.  t.  4.  p.  304.  and  S.  Dioaysius 
calls  Him  the  Radiance,  &vet£%n  xul 
uuysvif.  Athan.  S.  D.  15.  S.  Augustine 
too  says,  Semper  gignit  Pater,  et  semper 
nascitur  Filius.  Ep.  238.  n.  24.  Petav.  de 
Trin.  ii.  5.  n.  7.  quotes  the  follow- 
ing passage  from  Theodorus  Abucara, 
"  Since  the  Son's  generation  does  but 
signify  His  having  His  existence  from 
the  Father,  which  He  has  ever,  there- 

fore He  is  ever  begotten.  For  it  be- 
came Him,  who  is  properly  (uvgtus)  the 
Son,  ever  to  be  deriving  His  existence 
from  the  Father,  and  not  as  we  who 
derive  its  commencement  only.  In  us 
generation  is  a  way  to  existence;  in 
the  Son  of  God  it  denotes  the  existence 
itself;  in  Him  it  has  not  existence  for  its 
end,  but  it  is  itself  an  end,  TSX»J,  and 
is  perfect,  TiX»a»."  Opusc.  26. 

c  vid.  foregoing  note.  A  similar  pas- 
sage is  found  in  Cyril.  Thesaur.  v. 
p.  42.  Dial.  ii.  fin.  This  was  retorting 
the  objection ;  the  Arians  said,  "  How 
can  God  be  ever  perfect,  who  added  to 
Himself  a  Son  ?"  Athan.  answers, 
"  How  can  the  Son  not  be  eternal, 
since  God  is  ever  perfect?"  vid.  Greg. 
Nyssen.  contr.  Eunom.  Append,  p.  142. 
Cyril.  Thesaur.  x.  p.  78.  As  to  the 
Son's  perfection,  Aetius  objects  ap. 
Epiph.  Heer.  76.  p.  925,  6,  that  growth 
and  consequent  accession  from  without 
were  essentially  involved  in  the  idea  of 
Sonship ;  whereas  S.  Greg.  Naz.  speaks 
of  the  Son  as  not  arthit  <rt>drsgot,  tiro. 
T{Xi/«v;  aWsg  vopos  fnt  fifttrips  ytvirtvf. 
Orat.  20.  9  fin.  In  like  manner,  S. 
Basil  argues  against  Eunomius,  that 
the  Son  is  <r«Ai/«f,  because  He  is  the 
Image,  not  as  if  copied,  which  is  a 
gradual  work,  but  as  a  ^a^axTWj,  or 
impression  of  a  seal,  or  as  the  know- 
ledge communicated  from  master  to 
scholar,  which  comes  to  the  latter  and 
exists  in  him  perfect,  without  being  lost 
to  the  former,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  16 

2Q'2lfourLordisnotfrom  the  Father's  substance,  He  is  not  a  Son. 

Disc,  not;"   for  things  which  are  generate  were  not,  and  came 
-  —  to  be.     But   if   He  is  Son.  as   the  Father    says,  and  the 
Scriptures  proclaim,  and  "  Son"  is  nothing  else  than  what  is 
generated  from  the  Father  ;  and  what  is  generated  from  the 
Father  is  His  Word,  and  Wisdom,  and  Radiance  ;  what  is  to 
be  said  but  that,  in  maintaining  "  Once  the  Son  was  not," 
they  rob  God  of  His  Word,   like  plunderers,  and  openly 
predicate  of  Him  that  He  was  once  without  His  proper  Word 
an^  Wisdom,  and  that  the  Light  was  once  without  radiance, 
P.  25,     and  the  Fountain  was  once  barren  l  and  dry  2  ?  For  though  they 
°«*r*   pretend  alarm  at  the  name  of  time,  because  of  those  who  re- 
vnttn,  proach  them  with  it,  and  say,  that  He  was  before  times,  yet 
note  z.    whereas  they  assign  certain  periods,  in  which  they  imagine  He 

taftf-  was  not,  they  are  most  irreligious  still,  as  equally  suggesting 
times,  and  imputing  to  God's  nature3  an  absence  of  His 
rational  Word*. 

§.  15.       3.  But  if  on  the  other  hand,  while  they  acknowledge  with  us 

the  name  of  "  Son,"  from  an  unwillingness  to  be  publicly  and 

generally  condemned,  they  deny  that  the  Son  is  the  proper 

offspring  of  the  Father's  substance,  on  the  ground  that  this 

Jde^      must  imply  parts  and  divisions5  ;  what  is  this  but  to  deny  that 

$.10,11.  He  is  very  Son,  and  only  in  name  to  call  Him  Son  at  all? 

P^1G  -  And  is  it  not  a  grievous  error,  to  have  material  thoughts 

about  what  is  immaterial,  and  because  of  the  weakness  of  their 

proper  nature  to  deny  what  is  natural  and  proper   to   the 

p"i30,   Father?     Jt  does  but  remain6,  that  they  should  deny  Him 

note  c.'   also,  because  they  understand  not  how  God  is7,  and  what  the 

§.123.'     Father  is,  now  that,  foolish  men,  they  measure  by  themselves 

the  Offspring  of  the  Father.     And  persons  in  such  a  state 

of  mind  as  to  consider  that  there  cannot  be  a  Son  of  God, 

demand  our  pity;  but  they  must  be  interrogated  and  exposed 

for  the  chance  of  bringing  them  to  their  senses. 

4.  If  then,  as  you  say,  "  the  Son  is  from  nothing,"  and  "  was 
not  before  His  generation,"  He,  of  course,  as  well  as  others, 
must  be  called  Son,  and  God,  and  Wisdom  only  by  par- 
ticipation ;  for  thus  all  other  creatures  consist,  and  by  sanc- 
tification  are  glorified.  You  have  to  toll  us  then,  of  what  He  is 

partaker8'     AH  other  thin£s  Partake  the  Spirit,  but  He,  ac- 
,,;  14^  '  cording  to  you,  of  what  is  He  partaker  ?  of  the  Spirit  ?    Nay, 
rather  the  Spirit  Himself  takes  from  the  Son,  as  He  Himself 

To  be  begotten  is  to  participate  wholly.  203 

says ;  and  it  is  not  reasonable  to  say  that  the  latter  is  sane-  CHAP. 
tified  by  the  former.    Therefore  it  is  the  Father  that  He  par-        ' 
takes;  for  this  only  remains  to  say.     But  this,  which  is  par- 
ticipated, what  is  it  or  whence1  ?    If  it  be  something  external l  p.  is, 
provided  by  the  Father,  He  will  not  now  be  partaker  of  the110 
Father,  but  of  what  is  external  to  Him ;  and  no  longer  will 
He  be  even  second  after  the  Father,  since  He  has  before  Him 
this  other ;   nor  can  He  be  called  Son  of  the  Father,  but 
of  that,  as  partaking  which,  He  has  been  called  Son  and  God. 
And  if  this  be  extravagant  and  irreligious,  when  the  Father 
says,  This  is  My  Beloved  Son,  and  when  the  Son  says  that  Matt. 
God  is  His  own  Father,  it  follows  that  what  is  partaken  is  '   ' 
not  external,  but  from  the  substance  of  the  Father.     And  as 
to  this  again,  if  it  be  other  than  the  substance  of  the  Son,  an 
equal  extravagance  will  meet  us ;    there  being  in  that  case 
something   between   this   that    is    from  the  Father  and  the 
substance  of  the  Son,  whatever  that  be d. 

5.  Such  thoughts  then  being  evidently  extravagant  and  un-  §.  16. 
true,  we  are  driven  to  say  that  what  is  from  the  substance  of 
the  Father,  and  proper  to  Him,  is  entirely  the  Son ;  for  it 
is  all  one  to  say  that  God  is  wholly  participated,  and  that  He 
begets ;  and  what  does  begetting  signify  but  a  Son  ?    And 
thus  of  the  Son  Himself,  all  things  partake  according  to  the 
grace  of  the  Spirit  coining  from  Him2;  and  this  shews  thatthe2deDecr. 
Son  Himself  partakes  of  nothing,  but  what  is  partaken  from  the  ^  57 

d  Here  is  taught  us  the  strict  unity  of  by  Aetius,  Epiph.  Hser.  76.  10.  Thus 
the  Divine  Substance.  When  it  is  said  Athan.  says,  de  Deer.  §.  30.  "  He  has 
that  the  First  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  given  the  authority  of  all  things  to  the 
communicates  divinity  to  the  Second,  it  Son,  and,  having  given  it,  is  once  more> 
is  meant  that  that  one  Essence  which  is  <r«;u»,  the  Lord  of  all  things  through 
the  Father,  also  is  the  Son.  Hence  the  the  Word."  supr.  p.  55.  Again,  "  the 
force  of  the  word  opoovtriov,  which  was  in  Father  having  given  all  things  to 
consequence  accused  of  Sabellianism,  the  Son,  has  all  things  once  again, 
but  was  distinguished  from  it  by  the  vrciXiv.  ..for  the  Son's  Godhead  is  the 
particle  c>au,  "  together,  "which  implied  Godhead  of  the  Father."  Orat.iii.§.36fin. 
a  difference  as  well  as  unity; — whereas  Hence  fi  \K  reu  varies  t'ls  rot  u'tot  fatrtit 
Tttlroovytfi  or  ffuvouonov  implied,  with  the  Kpfivfiut  xa) a%iw(>i<rus  rwy%tini.  Expos. 
Sabellians,  an  identity  or  a  confusion,  t .  2.  vid.  supr.  p.  145,  note  r.  "  Vera 
The  Arians,  on  the  other  hand,  as  in  the  et  seterna  substantia,  in  se  tota  per- 
instance  of  Eusebius,  &c.  supr.  p.  63,  manens,  totam  se  coseternse  veritati 
note  g.  p.  116,  note  h.  considered  the  nativitatis  indulsit."  Fulgent.  Resp.  7. 
Father  and  the  Son  twoatxriai.  The  Ca-  And  S.Hilary,  "Filius  in  Patreestet in 
tholic  doctrine  is  that,  though  the  Divine  Filio  Pater,  non  per  transfusionem,  re- 
Substance  is  both  the  Father  Ingenerate  fusionemque  mutuam,  sed  per  viventis 
and  also  the  Only-begotten  Son, it  is  not  naturae  perfectam  nativitatem."  Trin. 
itself  a.yivvY)Tos  or  ym»jT»j;  which  was  vii.  51. 
the  objection  urged  against  the  Catholics 

204  Generation  does  not  imply  division  or  affection  of  substance. 

Disc.  Father,  is  the  Son;  for,  as  partaking  of  the  Son  Himself,  we 
__L_are  said  to  partake  of  God;  and  this  is  what  Peter  said, 
2  Pet.  that  ye  may  be  partakers1  in  a  divine  nature  ;  as  says  too 
/'J^/the  Apostle,  Know  ye  not,  that  ye  are  a  temple  of  God? 
i  Cor.  ancj  we  are  the  temple  of  the  Living  God.  And  beholding 
the  Son,  we  seethe  Father;  for  the  thought2  and  comprehen- 

vid.  de  sjon  Of  ^e  gon?  is  knowledge  concerning  the  Father,  because 
48  fin.  He  is  His  proper  offspring  from  His  substance.  And  since  to 
be  partaken  no  one  of  us  would  ever  call  affection  or  division  of 
God's  substance,  (for  it  has  been  shewn  and  acknowledged  that 
God  is  participated,  and  to  be  participated  is  the  same  thing 
as  to  beget;)  therefore  that  which  is  begotten  is  neither  affec- 
tion nor  division  of  that  blessed  substance.  Hence  it  is  not 
incredible  that  God  should  have  a  Son,  the  Offspring  of  His 
own  substance  ;  nor  do  we  imply  affection  or  division  of 
God's  substance,  when  we  speak  of  "  Son"  and  "  Offspring  ;" 
but  rather,  as  acknowledging  the  genuine,  and  true,  and 
Only  -begotten  of  God,  so  we  believe. 

6.  If  then,  as  we  have  stated  and  are  shewing,  what  is  the 

Offspring  of  the  Father's  substance  be  the  Son,  we  cannot 

3  supr.    hesitate,  rather,  we  mustbe  certain,  that  the  same  3  is  the  Wisdom 

note  i'     an(^  Word  of  the  Father,  in  and  through  whom  He  creates 

p.  41,     and  makes  all  things;  and  His  Brightness  too,  in  whom  He 

note  6 

enlightens  all  things,  and  is  revealed  to  whom  He  will  ;  and 

His  Expression  and  Image  also,  in  whom  He  is  contemplated 

Johnio,  and   known,  wherefore  He  and  His  Father  are  one.  and 


whoso  looketh  on  Him,  looketh  on  the  Father;  and  the 
Christ,  in  whom  all  things  are  redeemed,  and  the  new  creation 
wrought  afresh.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  Son  being  such 
Offspring,  it  is  not  fitting,  rather  it  is  full  of  peril,  to  say,  that 
He  is  a  work  out  of  nothing,  or  that  He  was  not  before 
His  generation.  For  he  who  thus  speaks  of  that  which  is 
proper  to  the  Father's  substance,  already  blasphemes  the 
*  P.  3,  Father  Himself4  ;  since  he  really  thinks  of  Him  what  He  falsely 
imagines  of  His  offspring. 



Third  proof  of  the  Son's  eternity,  viz.  from  other  titles  indicative  of  His 
consubstantiality ;  as  the  Creator;  as  One  of  the  Blessed  Trinity;  as 
Wisdom;  as  Word;  as  Image.  If  the  Son  a  perfect  Image  of  the 
Father,  why  is  He  not  a  Father  also  ?  because  God,  being  perfect,  is 
not  the  origin  of  a  race.  Only  the  Father  a  Father  because  the 
Only  Father,  only  the  Son  a  Son  because  the  Only  Son.  Men  are  not 
really  fathers  and  really  sons,  but  shadows  of  the  True.  The  Son  does 
not  become  a  Father,  because  He  has  received  from  the  Father,  to  be 
immutable  and  ever  the  same. 

1.  THIS  thought  is  of  itself  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  CHAP. 
Arian  heresy  ;   however,  its  heterodoxy  will  appear  also  from  — — '— 
the  following: — If  God  be  Maker  and  Creator,  and  create  His  ^' 
works  through  the  Son,  and  we  cannot  regard  things  which 
come  to  be,  except  as  being  through  the  Word,  is  it  not 
blasphemous,  God  being  Maker,  to  say,  that  His  Framing 
Word  and  His  Wisdom  once  was  not  ?    it  is  the  same  as 
saying,  that  God  is  not  Maker,  if  He  had  not  His  proper 
Framing  Word  which  is  from  Him,  but  that  That  by  which 

He  frames,  accrues  to  Him  from  without1,  and  is  alien  from1?-43* 
Him,  and  unlike2  in  substance.  2 

2.  Next,  let  them  tell  us  this,— or  rather  learn   from   it 
how  irreligious  they  are  in    saying  "  Once   He  was   not," 
and,   "  He   was   not   before    His    generation  ;" — for    if  the 
Word  is  not  with  the  Father  from  everlasting,  the  Trinity 33 
is  not  everlasting;  but  a  One4  was  first,  and  afterwards  by 
addition  it  became  a  Three5;  and  so  as  time  went  on,  it  seems, 5 
what  we  know  concerning  God  grew  and  took  shape6.     Andflvkl. 
further,  if  the  Son  is  not  proper  offspring  of  the  Father's 
substance,  but  of  nothing  has  come  to  be,  then  of  nothing  the 
Trinity  consists,  and  once  there  was  not  a  Three,  but  a  One ; 
and  a  Three  once  with  deficiency,  and  then  complete ;  deficient, 
before  the  Son  was  generated,  complete  when  He  had  come 

206  //'  the  Son  not  eternal,  the  Holy  Trinity  not  eternal. 

DISC,  to  be ;   and  henceforth  a  thing  generated  is  reckoned  with 
Im      the  Creator,  and  what  once  was  not  has  divine  worship  and 

1  p.  191,  glory  with  Him  who  was  ever1.  Nay,  what  is  more  serious 
s  d>  still,  the  Three  is  discovered  to  be  unlike  Itself,  consisting 
of  strange  and  alien  natures  and  substances.  And  this,  in 
other  words,  is  saying,  that  the  Trinity  has  a  generated 
consistence.  What  sort  of  a  worship  then  is  this,  which  is  not 
even  like  itself,  but  is  in  process  of  completion  as  time  goes 
on,  and  is  now  not  thus,  and  then  again  thus  ?  For  probably 
it  will  receive  some  fresh  accession,  and  so  on  without  limit, 
since  at  first  and  at  starting  it  took  its  consistence  by  way  of 
accessions.  And  so  undoubtedly  it  may  decrease  on  the  con- 
trary, for  what  is  added  plainly  admits  of  being  subtracted. 

§.  18.  3.  But  this  is  not  so:  perish  the  thought;  the'Three  is  not 
generated  ;  but  there  is  an  eternal  and  one  Godhead  in  a 
Three,  and  there  is  one  Glory  of  the  Holy  Three.  And  ye  pre- 
sume to  divide  it  into  different  natures ;  the  Father  being 
eternal,  yet  ye  say  of  the  Word  which  is  seated  by  Him, "  Once 
He  was  not ;"  and,  whereas  the  Son  is  seated  by  the  Father,  yet 
ye  think  to  place  Him  far  from  Him.  The  Three  is  Creator 
and  Framer,  and  ye  fear  not  to  degrade  It  to  things  which  are 
from  nothing ;  ye  scruple  not  to  equal  servile  beings  to  the 
nobility  of  the  Three,  and  to  rank  the  King,  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth, 

2deDecr.with  subjects2.     Cease  this  confusion  of  things  unassociable, 

p'.  56.  or  rather  of  things  which  are  not  with  Him  who  is.  Such 
statements  do  not  glorify  and  honour  the  Lord,  but  the 
reverse ;  for  he  who  dishonours  the  Son,  dishonours  also  the 
Father.  For  if  theological  doctrine  is  now  perfect  in  a 
Trinity,  and  this  is  the  true  and  only  worship  of  Elim,  and 
this  is  the  good  and  the  truth,  it  must  have  been  always 
so,  unless  the  good  and  the  truth  be  something  that  came 
after,  and  theological  doctrine  is  completed  by  additions. 
I  say,  it  must  have  been  eternally  so ;  but  if  not  eternally, 
not  so  at  present  either,  but  at  present  so,  as  you  suppose  it 
was  from  the  beginning, — I  mean,  not  a  Trinity  now.  But 
such  heretics  no  Christian  would  bear ;  it  belongs  to 
Greeks,  to  introduce  a  generated  Trinity,  and  to  level  It  with 
things  generate;  for  these  do  admit  of  deficiencies  and 
additions;  but  the  faith  of  Christians  acknowledges  the 
blessed  Trinity  as  unalterable  and  perfect  and  ever  what  It 

Names  "  Wisdom?  "Fountain?  "  Word?  imply  eternity.  207 

was,  neither  adding  to  It  what  is  more,  nor  imputing  to  It  CHAP. 
any  loss,  (for  both  ideas  are  irreligious,)  and  therefore  it  dis — 

sociates  it  from  all  things  generated,  and  it  guards  as 
indivisible  and  worships  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  Itself; 
and  shuns  the  Arian  blasphemies,  and  confesses  and  acknow- 
ledges that  the  Son  was  ever;  for  He  is  eternal,  as  is  the 
Father,  of  whom  He  is  the  Eternal  Word, — to  which  subject 
let  us  now  return  again. 

4.  If  God  be,  and  be  called,  the  Fountain  of  wisdom  and  §.  19. 
life, — as  He  says  by  Jeremiah,  TJiey  have  forsaken  Me  the  Foun-  Jer.  2, 
tain  of  living  waters;  and  again,  A  glorious  high  throne  from  je'r  ^ 
the  beginning,  is  the  £>/«£<?  of  our  sanctuary;  O  Lord,  the^' 
Ho})e  of  Israel,  all  that  forsake  Thee  shall  be  ashamed,  and 

they  that  depart  from  Me  shall  be  written  in  the  earth) 
because  they  have  forsaken  the  Lord,  the  Fountain  of  living 
waters ;  and  in  the  book  of  Baruch  it  is  written,  Tliou  hast  Bar.  3, 
forsaken  the  Fountain  of  wisdom, — this  implies  that  life  and     ' 
wisdom  are  not  foreign  to  the  Substance  of  the  Fountain,  but 
are  proper  to  It,  nor  were  at  anytime  without  existence1,  but1  in/- 
were always.   Now  the  Son  is  all  this,  who  says,  lam  the  Life,  j"J*T* 
and,  /  Wisdom  dwell  with  prudence.    Is  it  not  then  irreligious  14»  6- 
to  say, "  Once  the  Son  was  not  ?"  for  it  is  all  one  with  saying,  ]2r.OV'  3' 
"  Once  the  Fountain  was  dry,  destitute  of  Life  and  Wisdom." 
But  a  fountain  it  would  then  cease  to  be  ;  for  what  begetteth 
not  from  itself,  is  not  a  fountain2.     What  a  load  of  extra- 2  P-  202> 

rpf  9 

vagance !  for  God  promises  that  those  who  do  His  will  shall 
be  as  a  fountain  which  the  water  fails  not,  saying  by  Isaiah 
the  prophet.  And  the  Lord  shall  satisfy  thy  soul  in  drought,  Isa.  587 
and  make  thy  bones  fat ;  and  thou  shalt  be  like  a  watered 
garden,  and  like  a  spring  of  water,  whose  waters  fail  not.  And 
yet  these,  whereas  God  is  called  and  is  a  Fountain  of  wisdom, 
dare  to  insult  Him  as  barren3  and  void  of  His  proper  Wisdom. 3  «ya»«» 
But  their  doctrine  is  false ;  truth  witnessing  that  God  is  the 
eternal  Fountain  of  His  proper  Wisdom ;  and,  if  the  Foun- 
tain be  eternal,  the  Wisdom  also  must  needs  be  eternal.     For 
in  It  were  all  things  made,  as  David  says  in  the  Psalm,  In  Ps.  104, 
Wisdom  hast  Thou  made  them  all;  and  Solomon  says,  7%£pr'ov<3? 
Lord  by  Wisdom  hath  formed  the  earth,  by  understanding 19- 
hath  He  established  the  heavens. 

5.  And  this  Wisdom  is  the  Word,  and  by  Him,  as  John  says, 

208  Our  Lord  not  one  of"alF  thing*. 

Disc,  all  things  were  made,  and  without  Him  was  made  not  one 

T-      thing*.     And  this  Word  is  Christ;  for  there  is  One  God,  the 

1  *'  Father,  from  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  for  Him;  and 

i  Cor.    Qne  J^ord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  firings,  and 

we  through  Him.     And  if  all  things  are  through  Him,  He 

Himself  is  not  to  be  reckoned  with  that  "  all."     For  he  who 

1  vid.     dares1  to  call  Him,  through  whom  are  all  things,  one  of  that 

d/Trin  "  a^?"  surelj  w^^  have  like  speculations  concerning  God,  from 

ii.  12.     whom  are  all.     But  if  he  shrinks  from  this  as  extravagant,  and 

excludes  God  from  that  all,  it  is  but  consistent  that  he  should 

also  exclude  from  that  all  the  Only-Begotten  Son,  as  being 

proper  to  the  Father's  substance.  And,  if  He  be  not  one  of 

3  de       the  all2,  it  is  sin  to  say  conceming  Him,  "  He  was  not,"  and 
c  3°0r'     u  He  was  not  before  His  generation."     Such  words  may  be 
SUP/-      used  of  the  creatures;  but  as  to  the  Son,  He  is  such  as  the 

Father  is,  of  whose  substance  He  is  proper  Offspring,  Word, 
3deDecr.and  Wisdom3.  For  this  is  proper  to  the  Son,  as  regards  the 
p  28*.  Father,  and  this  shews  that  the  Father  is  proper  to  the  Son; 

that  we  may  neither  say  that  God  was  ever  without  His  Rational 

4  fat-     Wordb,  nor  that  the  Son  was  non-existing4.    For  wherefore  a 

a  The  words  u  that  was  made"  which  as  He  is  wise  ;  which  would  be  a  kind 
end  this  verse  were  omitted  by  the  of  Sabellianism.  But,  whereas  their  op- 
ancient  citers  of  it,  as  Irensus,  Cle-  ponents  said  that  He  was  but  called  Word 
ment,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Tertullian,  andWisdomer/fertheattribute,(vid.supr. 
nay,  Augustine ;  but  because  it  was  p.  95,  note  c,)  they  said  that  such  titles 
abused  by  the  Eunomians,  Macedoni-  marked,  not  only  a  typical  resemblance 
ans,  &c.  as  if  derogatory  to  the  divinity  to  the  attribute,  but  so  full  a  corre- 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  quoted  in  full,  spondence  and  (as  it  were)  coincidence 
as  by  Epiphanius,  Ancor.  75.  who  in  nature  with  it,  that  whatever  relation 
goes  so  far  as  to  speak  severely  of  that  attribute  had  to  God,  such  in 
the  ancient  mode  of  citation,  vid.  Fa-  kind  had  the  Son; — that  the  attribute 
brie,  and  Routh,  ad  Hippol.  contr.  was  His  symbol,  and  not  His  mere 
Noet.  12.  archetype;  that  our  Lord  was  eternal 

b  aXflyov.  vid.  supr.  p.  25,  note  c,  and  proper  to  God,  because  that  attri- 

where  other  instances  are  given  from  bute  was,  which  was  His  title,  vid. 

Athan.  and  Dionysius  of  Rome;  also  Athan.  Ep.  jEg.  14.  that  our  Lord  was 

p.  2,  note  e.  vid.  also  Orat.  iv.  2.  4.  that  Essential  Reason  and  Wisdom, — 

Sent.  D.  23.  Origen,  supr.  p.  48.  not  by  which  the  Father  is  wise,  but 

Athenag.  Leg.  10.  Tat.  contr.  Grsec.  without  which  the  Father  was  jtolwise; — 

5.  Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  10.  Hipp,  contr.  not,  that  is,  in  the  way  of  a  formal  cause, 

Noet.  10.  Nyssen.  coutr.  Eunom.  vii.  but  in  fact.  Or,  whereas  the  Father 

p.  215.  viii.  pp.  230,240.  Orat.  Catech.  Himself  is  Reason  and  Wisdom,  the 

1.  Naz.  Orat.  29. 17  fin.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  Son  is  the  necessary  result  of  that  Rea- 

xiv.  p.  145.  (vid.  Petav.  de  Trin.  son  and  Wisdom,  so  that,  to  say  that 

vi.  9.)  It  must  not  be  supposed  from  there  was  no  Word,  would  imply  there 

these  instances  that  the  Fathers  meant  was  no  Divine  Reason ;  just  as  a  ra- 

that  our  Lord  was  literally  what  is  diance  implies  a  light;  or,  as  Petavius 

called  the  attribute  of  reason  or  wisdom  remarks,  1.  c.  quoting  the  words  which 

in  the  Divine  Essence,  or  in  other  follow  shortly  after  in  the  text,  the 

words  that  He  was  God  merely  viewed  eternity  of  the  Original  implies  the 

If  our  Lord  the  Image  of  the  Father, He  isfrom  His  substance. 209 

Son,  if  not  from  Him  ?  or  wherefore  Word  and  Wisdom,  if  not  CHAP. 
ever  proper  to  Him  ?    When  then  was  God  without  Him  who    VL 
is  proper  to  Him  ?    or  how  can  a  man  consider  that  which  is  §'  20* 
proper,  as  foreign  and  alien1  in  substance?   for  other  things,1  «>->.«- 
according  to  the  nature  of  things  generate,  are  without  likeness  Jffl"w" 
in  substance  with  the  Maker ;  but  are  external  to  Him,  made  suPr_- 
by  the  Word  at  His  grace  and  will,  and  thus  admit  of  ceasing  ?ef.  i. ' 
to  be,  if  it  so  pleases  Him  who  made  them  ° ;  for  such  is  the 
nature  of  things  generate2.     But  as  to  what  is  proper  to  the2infr- 
Father's  substance,  (for  this  we  have  already  found  to  be  the  Sote  i.' 
Son,)  what  daring  is  it  and  irreligion  to  say  that  "  This  comes 
from  nothing,"  and  that  "  It  was  not  before  generation,"  but 
was  adventitious3,  and  can  at  some  time  cease  to  be  again  ?     3l*/<r«/*- 
6.  Let  a  person  only  dwell  upon  this  thought,  and  he  will  p  3**' 
discern  how  the  perfection  and  the  plenitude  of  the  Father's  note  v- 
substance  is  impaired  by  this  heresy;  however,  he  will  see  its 
extravagance  still  more  clearly,  if  he  considers  that  the  Son 
is  the  Image  and  Radiance  of  the  Father,  and  Expression, 
and  Truth.     For  if,  when   Light  exists,  there  be  withal  its 
Image,  viz.  Radiance,  and  a  Subsistence  existing,  there  be  of 
it   the  entire  Expression,  and  a  Father  existing,  there  be 
His  Truth,  viz.  the  Son4;    let  them   consider  what  depths4  "the 
•of   irreligion   they  fall   into,  who  make  time   the   measure  om^tted 
of  the  Image  and  Countenance  of  the  Godhead.     For  if  the  bY 

.     Montf. 

Son  was  not  before  His  generation,  Truth  was  not  always  in 
God,  which  it  were  a  sin  to  say;  for,  since  the  Father  was, 
there  was  ever  in  Him  the  Truth,  which  is  the  Son,  who  says, 
lam  the  Truth.  And  the  Subsistence  existing,  of  course  there  Johni4, 
was  forthwith  its  Expression  and  Image ;  for  God's  Image  is 
not  delineated  from  without d,  but  God  Himself  hath  begotten 

eternity  of  the  Image  ;   <rtjs  vvofTKftus  is  in,  and  one  with,  the  Father,  who 

wra^aiATjtf,    foivruf   tv$us   dttti   3s?  rov  has   neither  beginning  nor   end.     On 

^K^KKT^U  x.a}  T»JV  tixo'vx  returns,  §.  20.  the  question  of  the  "  will  of  God"  as  it 

vid.  also  ini'r.  §.  31.  de  Deer.  §.  13.  p.  affects   the    doctrine,    vid.    Orat.    iii. 

21.  §.  20.  23.  pp.  35.  40.  Theod.  Hist.  §.  59,  &c. 

i.  3.  p.  737.  d  Athan.  argues  from  the  very  name 

c  This  was  but  the  opposite  aspect  Image   for   our   Lord's   eternity.     An 

of  the  tenet  of  our  Lord's  consubstanti-  Image,  to  be  really  such,  roust  be  an 

ality  or  eternal  generation.     For  if  He  expression  from  the  Original,  not  an 

came  into  being  at  the  will  of  God,  by  external   and  detached  imitation,  vid. 

the  same  will  He  might  cease  to  be;  supr.note  b.infr.  §.  26.  p  217.  Hence  S. 

but  if  His  existence  is    unconditional  Basil,  "  He  is  an  Image  not  made  with 

and    necessary,    as    God's    attributes  the  hand,  or  a  work  of  art,  but  a  living 

might  be,  then  as  He  had  no  begin-  Image,"  &c.  supr.  p.  106,  note  d.  vid. 

ning,  so  can  He  have  no  end  ;  for  He  alsoeontr.Eunom.iU6,l7.Epiph.Haer. 

210  The  title  "  Image"  implies  eternity. 

Disc,  it;  in  which  seeing  Himself,  He  has  delight, as  the  Son  Himself 
Prov'  g  says,  /  was  His  delight.     When  then  did  the  Father  not  see 
so.       '  Himself  in  His  own  Image  ?    or  when  had  He  not  delight, 
that  a  man  should  dare  to  say,  "The  Image  is  out  of  no- 
thing," and  "  The  Father  had  not  delight  before  the  Image 
was  generated  ?"   and  how  should  the  Maker  and  Creator  see 
Himself  in  a  created  and  generated  substance  ?  for  such  as  is 
§.  21.  the  Father,  such  must  be  the  Image.     Proceed  we  then  to 
consider  the  attributes  of  the  Father,  and  we  shall  come  to 
know  whether  this  Image  is  really  His.   The  Father  is  eternal, 
immortal,  powerful,  light,  King,  Sovereign,  God,  Lord,  Creator, 
and  Maker.     These  attributes  must  be  in  the  Image,  to  make 
Johni4,  it  true  that  he  that  hath  seen  the  Son  hath  seen  the  Father. 
If  the  Son  be  not  all  this,  but,  as  the  Arians  consider,  a  thing 
generate,  and  not  eternal,  this  is  not  a  true  Image  of  the 
Father,  unless  indeed  they  give  up  shame,  and  go  on  to  say, 
that  the  title  of  Image,  given  to  the  Son,  is  not  a  token  of  a 
1  de        similar  substance e,  but  His  name  *  only.    But  this,  on  the  other 
i6*Cpp. '  hand,  O  ye  Christ's  enemies,  is  not  an  Image,  nor  is  it  an 
25. 26.    Expression.     For  what  is  the  likeness  of  what  is  out  of  no- 
thing to  Him  who  brought  what  was  nothing  into  being?  or 
how  can  that  which  is  not,  be  like  Him  that  is,  being  short  of 
Him  in  once  not  being,  and  in  its  having  its  place  among 
things  generate  ? 

7.  However,  such  the  Arians  wishing  Him  to  be,  have  con- 
trived arguments  such  as  this ; — "  If  the  Son  is  the  Father's 
2fc<»«f    offspring  and  image,  and  is  like  in  all  things2  to  the  Father, 
*«lr«,    then   it:   necessarily  holds   that   as  He   is  begotten,  so   He 
p.  115,   begets,  and  He  too  becomes  father  of  a  son.     And  again,  he 

note  e.         .        . 

infr.  §.    who  is  begotten  from  Him,  begets  in  his  turn,  and  so  on 


p.  237. 

76, 3.  Hilar.  Trin.  vii.  41  fin.  Origen  ob-  Discourses, 
serves  that  man,  on  the  contrary,  is  an         e  J^o/a;  ovrtuf.     And  so  §.  20.  init. 

example   of  an  external   or   improper  t^etav  xar   otxrw,  and  3ftu»,  rvs  ov*iaf. 

imageofGod.Periarch,i.2.§.6.Itmight  §.  26.  fyous  K^    ow«v,   iii.  26.    and 

have  been  more  direct  to  have  argued  tyoug  xetrcc  rJ|y  «&«'«»  r»u  *««Wf .    Ep. 

from  the  name  of  Image  to  our  Lord's  JEg.   17.    Also    Alex.  Ep.  Encycl.  2. 

consubstantiahty  rather  than  eternity,  Considering  what   he  says  in   the  de 

as,   e.  g.    S.   Gregory  Naz.   "  He    is  Syn.  $.  38,  &c.  supr.  p.  136,  note  g, 

Image  as  one  m  substance,  ^MJO*,  in    controversy   with   the   Semi-arians 

...   tor    this    is    the    nature    of    an  a  year  or  two  later,  this  use  of  their  for- 

^Td0  be/c°Py°f  the  archetype."  mula,   in   preference    to  the 

Orat.  36.  vid ,  also  de  Deer.  §.  20,  23.  (vid.  foregoing  note,)  deserve  our  at- 

supra,  pp.35, 40.  but  for  whatever  reason  tention. 
Athan.  avoids  the  word  Iftoovtitv  in  these 

Why  the  Father  only  a  Father  and  the  Son  only  a  Son,  -211 

without  limit;  for  this  is  to  make  the  Begotten  like  Him  that  CHAP. 

begat  Him."     Authors  of  blasphemy,  verily,  are  these  foes  of — 

God1 !  who,  sooner  than  confess  that  the  Son  is  the  Father's 
Image f,  conceive  material  and  earthly  ideas  concerning  the* 
Father  Himself,  ascribing  to  Him  severings2  and  effluences32 
and  influences.  If  then  God  be  as  man,  let  Him  be  also  a  f{ 
parent  as  man,  so  that  His  Son  should  be  father  of  another, 3 
and  so  in  succession  one  from  another,  till  the  series  they  note  q.  ' 
imagine  grows  into  a  multitude  of  gods4.  But  if  God  be  not4  p.  is. 
as  man,  as  He  is  not,  we  must  not  impute  to  Him  the 
attributes  of  man.  For  brutes  and  men,  after  a  Creator  has 
begun  them,  are  begotten  by  succession ;  and  the  son,  having 
been  begotten  of  a  father  who  was  a  son,  becomes  accordingly 
in  his  turn  a  father  to  a  son,  in  inheriting  from  his  father 
that  by  which  he  himself  has  come  to  be.  Hence  in  such 
instances  there  is  not,  properly  speaking,  either  father  or 
son,  nor  do  the  father  and  the  son  stay  in  their  respective 
characters,  for  the  son  himself  becomes  a  father,  being  son 
of  his  father,  but  father  of  his  son.  But  it  is  not  so  in 

1  The  objection  is  this,  that,  if  our 
Lord  be  the  Father's  Image,  He  ought 
to  resemble  Him  in  being  a  Father. 
S.  Athanasius  answers  that  God  is  not 
as  man  ;  with  us  a  son  becomes  a 
father  because  our  nature  is  ftutrri, 
transitive  and  without  stay,  even  shift- 
ing and  passing  on  into  new  forms  and 
relations ;  but  that  God  is  perfect  and 
ever  the  same,  what  He  is  once  that 
He  continues  to  be  ;  God  the  Father 
remains  Father,  and  God  the  Son  re- 
mains Son.  Moreover  men  become 
fathers  by  detachment  and  transmission, 
and  what  is  received  is  handed  on  in 
a  succession  ;  whereas  the  Father,  by 
imparting  Himself  wholly,  begets  the 
Son  ;  and  a  perfect  nativity  finds  its 
termination  in  itself.  The  Son  has  not 
a  Son,  because  the  Father  has  not  a 
Father.  Thus  the  Father  is  the  only 
true  Father,  and  the  Son  only  true  Son  ; 
the  Father  only  a  Father,  the  Son  only 
a  Son ;  being  really  in  Their  Persons 
what  human  fathers  are  but  hy  office, 
character,  accident,  and  name ;  vid.supr. 
p.  18,  note  o.  And  since  the  Father  is 
unchangeable  as  Father,  in  nothing 
does  the  Son  more  fulfil  the  idea  of  a 
perfect  Image  than  in  being  unchange- 
able too.  Thus  S.  Cyril,  also  Thesaur. 
10.  p.  124.  And  this  perhaps  may 

illustrate  a  strong  and  almost  startling 
statement  of  some  of  the  Greek  Fathers, 
that  the  First  Person  in  the  Holy 
Trinity,  considered  as  Father,  is  not 
God.  E.  g.  tl  £»  6ibs  o  vies,  elx  i-fti 
vto's'  oftoiuf  xu,}  o  *«T»J£,  oux  \ieti  crar»^, 
fads'  aXX'  lifti  ovffia.  ra/aJi,  tig  ffrt  W«T»J£ 
xa,}  o  ulos  6109.  Nyssen.  t.  i.  p.  915.  vid. 
Petav.  de  Deo  i.  9.  §.  13.  Should  it  be 
asked,  "  What  is  the  Father  if  not  God  ?" 
it  is  enough  to  answer,  "  the  Father." 
Men  differ  from  each  other  as  being  in- 
dividuals, but  the  characteristic  differ- 
ence between  Father  and  Son  is,  not 
that  they  are  individuals,  but  that  they 
are  Father  and  Son.  In  these  extreme 
statements  it  must  be  ever  borne  in  mind 
that  we  are  contemplating  divine  things 
according  to  our  notions,  not  in  fact : 
i.e.  speaking  of  the  Almighty  Father, 
as  such  ;  there  being  no  real  separation 
between  His  Person  and  His  Substance. 
It  may  be  added,  that,  though  theo- 
logians differ  in  their  decisions,  it 
would  appear  that  our  Lord  is  not  the 
Image  of  the  Father's  person,  but  of 
the  Father's  substance  ;  in  other  words, 
not  of  the  Father  considered  as  Father, 
but  considered  as  God.  That  is,  God 
the  Son  is  like  and  equal  to  God  the 
Father,  because  they  are  both  the  same 
God ;  vid.  p.  149,  note  x.  also  next  note. 


212  Because  the  Father  the  only  Father  and  the  Son  the  only  Son. 

Disc,  the  Godhead ;  for  not  as  man  is  God ;  for  the  Father  is  not 

i from  father;   therefore  doth  He   not  beget  one  who   shall 

1  *«of-  beget ;  nor  is  the  Son  from  effluence  '  of  the  Father,  nor  is 
He  begotten  from  a  father  that  was  begotten  ;  therefore  neither 
is  He  begotten  so  as  to  beget.  Thus  it  belongs  to  the  God- 
head alone,  that  the  Father  is  properly g  father,  and  the  Son 
properly  son,  and  in  Them,  and  Them  only,  does  it  hold  that 
§.  22.  the  Father  is  ever  Father  and  the  Son  ever  Son.  Therefore 
he  who  asks  why  the  Son  has  not  a  son,  must  inquire  why 
the  Father  had  not  a  father.  But  both  suppositions  are 
indecent  and  irreligious  exceedingly.  For  as  the  Father 
is  ever  Father  and  never  could  be  Son,  so  the  Son  is  ever  Son 
and  never  could  be  Father.  For  in  this  rather  is  He  shewn 
to  be  the  Father's  Expression  and  Image,  remaining  what 
He  is  and  not  changing,  but  thus  receiving  from  the  Father 
to  be  one  and  the  same.  If  then  the  Father  change,  let  the  Image 
u  change ;  for  so  is  the  Image  and  Radiance  in  its  relation 
towards  Him  who  begat  It.  But  if  the  Father  is  unalterable, 
and  what  He  is  that  He  continues,  necessarily  does  the 
Image  also  continue  what  He  is,  and  will  not  alter.  Now 
He  is  Son  from  the  Father;  therefore  He  will  not  become 
other  than  is  proper  to  the  Father's  substance.  Idly  then 
have  the  foolish  ones  devised  this  objection  also,  wishing  to 
separate  the  Image  from  the  Father,  that  they  might  level 
the  Son  with  things  generated. 

vid.  p.  18,  note  o.     Else-  is  he  called  father  of  another ;  so  that  in 

where  Athan.says,  "  The  Father  being  the  case  of  men  the  names  father  and 

one  and  only  is  Father  of  a  Son  one  and  son  do  not  properly,  xvg'iug,  hold."  ad 

only;  and  in  the  instance  of  Godhead  Serap.  i.  16.  also  ibid.  iv.  4  fin.  and  6. 

only  have  the  names  Father  and  Son  vid.  also  xv^tugj  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  29. 5. 

stay,  and  are  ever;  for  of  men  if  any  a,\*6us ,  Orat.  25, 16.  «W«f,  Basil. contr. 

one  be  called  father,  yet  he  has  been  son  Eunom.  i.  5.  p.  215. 
of  another  j  and  if  he  be  called  son,  yet 



Whether,  in  the  generation  of  the  Son,  God  made  One  that  was  already,  or 
One  that  was  not. 

1.  RANKING  Him  among  these,  according  to  the  teaching  of  CHAP. 

Eusebius,  and  accounting  Him  such  as  the  things  which  come — 

into  being  through  Him,  the  Arians  revolted  from  the  truth, 
and  used,  when  they  commenced  this  heresy,  to  go  about  with 
dishonest  phrases  which  they  had  got  together1 ;  nay,  up  to  this '  P- 193, 
time  some  of  them a,  when  they  fall  in  with  boys  in  the  market- 
place, question  them,  not  out  of  divine  Scripture,  but  thus,  as 
if  bursting  with  the  abundance  of  their  heart; — "He  who  is,  Mat.  12, 
did  He  make  him  who  was  not,  from  Him  who  is,  or  him 
who  was?   therefore  did  He  make  the  Son,  whereas  He  was,  or 

a  This  miserable  procedure,  of  making 
sacred  and  mysterious  subjects  a  matter 
of  popular  talk  and  debate,  which  is  a 
sure  mark  of  heresy,  had  received  a 
great  stimulus  about  this  time  by  the 
rise  of  the  Anomceans.  Eusebius's  tes- 
timony to  the  profaneness  which 
attended  Arianism  upon  its  rise,  has 
been  given  above,  p.  75,  note  h.  The 
Thalia  is  another  instance  of  it.  S. 
Alexander  speaks  of  the  interference, 
even  judicial,  in  its  behalf  against  him- 
self, of  disobedient  women,  J/  lvrv£iets 
ytnaixetgiav  uriixruv  a,  ^*a-rjjo*av,  and  of 
the  busy  and  indecent  gadding  about  of 
the  younger,  \x  <rov  <rt(>tri>o%(i$>in  vrciffai 
ayvia.v  ei.fftp.vus-  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3. 

p.  730.  also  p.  747.  also  of  the  men's  buf- 
foon conversation,  p.  731.  Socrates  says 
that  "  in  the  Imperial  Court,  the  officers 
of  the  bedchamber  held  disputes  with 
the  women,  and  in  the  city  in  every 
house  there  was  a  war  of  dialectics." 
Hist.  ii.  2.  This  mania  raged  espe- 
cially in  Constantinople,  and  S.  Gre- 
gory Naz.  speaks  of  "  Jezebels  in  as 
thick  a  crop  as  hemlock  in  a  field." 
Orat.  35.  3.  vid.  supr.  p.  91,  note  q.  He 

speaks  of  the  heretics  as  "  aiming  at 
one  thing  only,  how  to  make  good  or 
refute  points  of  argument,"  making 
11  every  market-place  resound  with  their 
words,  and  spoiling  every  entertainment 
with  their  trifling  and  offensive  talk." 
Orat.  27.  2.  The  most  remarkable 
testimony  of  the  kind  though  not  con- 
cerning Constantinople,  is  given  by  S. 
Gregory  Nyssen,  and  often  quoted, 
"  Men  of  yesterday  and  the  day  before, 
mere  mechanics,  off-hand  dogmatists 
in  theology,  servants  too  and  slaves 
that  have  been  flogged,  runaways  from 
servile  work,  are  solemn  with  us  and 
philosophical  about  things  incompre- 
hensible  "With  such  the  whole  city 

is  full ;  its  smaller  gates,  forums, 
squares,  thoroughfares ;  the  clothes-ven-^ 
ders,  the  money-lenders,  the  victuallers. 
Ask  about  pence,  and  he  will  discuss 
the  Generate  and  Ingenerate  ;  inquire 
the  price  of  bread,  he  answers,  Greater 
is  the  Father,  and  the  Son  is  subject ; 
say  that  a  bath  would  suit  you,  and  he 
defines  that  the  Son  is  out  of  nothing.'* 
t.  2.  p.  898. 

214  As  God  exists  without  place, and  creates  without  materials, 

Disc,  whereas  He  was  notb?"     And  again,  "  Is  the  Ingenerate  one 

T>      or  two  ?"  and  "  Has  He  free  will,  and  yet  does  not  alter  at 

His  own  choice,  as  being  of  an  alterable  nature  ?  for  He  is 

not  as  a  stone  to  remain  by  Himself  uiimoveable."     Next 

they  turn   to    women,   and   address   them   in   turn   in   this 

womanish  language ;   "  Hadst  thou  a  son  before  bearing  ? 

now,  as  thou   hadst   not,  so  neither   was  the  Son  of  God 

before  His  generation."     In  such  language  do  the  disgraceful 

men  sport  and  revel,  and  liken  God  to  men,  pretending  to 

Rom.  i,be  Christians,  but  changing  God's  glory  into  an  image  made 

oo  , 

t  '  j^  like  to  corruptible  man  . 

ref.  3.         2.  Words  so  senseless  and  dull  deserve  no  answer  at  all ; 

*'         however,  lest  their  heresy  appear  to  have  any  foundation,  it  may 

be  right,  though  we  go  out  of  the  way  for  it,  to  refute  them  even 

here,  especially  on  account  of  the  women  who  are  so  readily 

deceived  by  them.     When   they   thus   speak,   they  should 

inquire    of    an    architect,    whether   he    can   build   without 

materials;    and  if  he  cannot,  whether  it  follows  that  God 

3supr.    could  not  make  the   universe  without  materials2.     Or  they 

notofo.    should  ask  every  man,  whether  he  can  be  without  place;  and 

3  de       if  he  cannot,  whether  it  follows  that  God  is  in  place3;  that  so 

§.  TL     they  may  be  brought  to  shame  even  by  their  audience.    Or  why 

p.  17,18.  is  it  that,  on  hearing  that  God  has  a  Son,  they  deny  Him  by 

the  parallel  of  themselves;    whereas,  if  they  hear  that  He 

creates  and  makes,  no  longer  do  they  object  their  human 

ideas  ?  they  ought  in  creation  also  to  entertain  the  same,  and 

to  supply  God  with  materials,  and  so  deny  Him  to  be  Creator, 

till  they  end  in  herding  with  Manichees.     But  if  the  bare  idea 

of  God  transcends  such  thoughts,  and,  on  very  first  hearing, 

a  man  believes  and  knows  that  He  is  in  being,  not  as  we  are, 

and  yet  in  being  as  God,  and  creates  not  as  man  creates,  but 

yet  creates  as  God,  it  is  plain  that  He  begets  also  not  as  men 

beget,  but  begets  as  God.     For  God  does  not  make  man  His 

b  This  objection   is  ^found  In   Alex,  but  this,   that  the   very  fact  of  His 

~*  ~fyck  2'  «  «v  0ies  rov  (w  oWa  Ix.  being  begotten   or    a    Son,  implies   a 

•Tov  ft*  ovrof.     Again,  ovroc.  yiyswnxs  *  beginning,  that  is,   a  time  when  He 

OVK  ovra,.  Greg.  Orat.  29. 9.  who  answers  was  not ;    it  being  by  the  very  force 

it.    Pseudo-Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  iv.  p.  of  the  words  absurd  to  say  that  "  God 

281.  2.    Basil  calls  the  question  xoXv-  begat  Him  that  was"  or  to  deny  that 

i(6M»m,   contr.   Eunom.  ii.    14.     It  "  God  begat  Him  that  was  not."     For 

will    be    seen    to   be    but    the   Arian  the  symbol,  ol*   %*  v*h   ym*t*t  rid. 

tormula  of  "He  was  not  before  His  note  at  the  end  of  this  Discourse', 
generation,"  in  another  shape ;   being 

so  He  begets  without  time.  215 

pattern;  but  rather  we  men,  for  that  God  is  properly,  and  CHAP. 
alone  truly  !,  Father  of  His  Son,  are  also  called  fathers  of  ourt  VIL_ 
own  children  ;  for  of  Him  is  every  fatherhood  in  heaven  awe?  note  k.' 
earth   named.      And   their    positions,   while   unscrutinized,  £j)h'  3> 
have  a  shew  of  sense ;  but  if  any  one  scrutinize  them  by 
reason,  they  will  but  bring  on  them  derision  and  mockery. 

3.  For  first  of  all,  as  to  their  first  question,  which  is  such  as  §•  24. 
this,  how  dull  and  vague  it  is  !  they  do  not  explain  who  it  is 
they  ask  about,  so  as  to  allow  of  an  answer,  but  they  say  ab- 
stractedly, "  He  who  is,"  "  him  who  is  not."  Who  then  "  is," 
and  what  "  are  not,"  O  Arians  ?  or  who  "  is,"  and  who 
"  is  not  ?"  what  are  said  "  to  be,"  what  "  not  to  be  ?"  for  He 
that  is,  can  make  things  which  are  not,  and  which  are,  and 
which  were  before.  For  instance,  carpenter,  and  goldsmith, 
and  potter,  each,  according  to  his  own  art,  works  upon 
materials  previously  existing,  making  what  vessels  he  pleases; 
and  the  God  of  all  Himself,  having  taken  the  dust  of  the 
earth  existing  and  already  brought  to  be,  fashions  man; 
that  very  earth,  however,  whereas  it  was  not  once,  He  has  at 
one  time  made  by  His  own  Word.  If  then  this  is  the  meaning 
of  their  question,  the  creature  on  the  one  hand  plainly  was  not 
before  its  generation,  and  men,  on  the  other,  work  the  existing 
material ;  and  thus  their  reasoning  is  inconsequent,  since  both 
"  what  is"  becomes,  and  "  what  is  not"  becomes,  as  these 
instances  shew.  But  if  they  speak  concerning  God  and  His 
Word,  let  them  complete  their  question  and  then  ask,  Was  the 
God  "  who  is"  ever  without  rational  Word 2  ?  and,  whereas  He 2  &*••?<* 
is  Light,  was  He  ray -less  ?  or  was  He  always  Father  of  the  note  b.' 
Word  ?  Or  again  in  this  manner,  Has  the  Father  "  who  is" 
made  the  Word  "  who  is  not,"  or  has  He  ever  with  Him  His 
Word,  as  the  proper  offspring  of  His  substance?  This  will 
shew  them  that  they  do  but  presume  aud  venture  on 
sophisms  about  God  and  Him  who  is  from  Him.  Who 
indeed  can  bear  to  hear  them  say  that  God  was  ever  without 
rational  Word  ?  this  is  what  they  fall  into  a  second  time, 
though  endeavouring  in  vain  to  escape  it  and  to  hide  it 
with  their  sophisms.  Nay,  one  would  fain  not  hear  them 
disputing  at  all,  that  God  was  not  always  Father,  but 
became  so  afterwards,  (which  is  necessary  for  their  fantasy, 
that  His  Word  once  was  not,)  considering  the  number  of  the 

216        If  the  Son  not  eternal,  neither  is  the  Father. 

Disc,  proofs  already  adduced  against  them;    while  John  besides 
L      says,   The    Word  was,  and  Paul  again  writes,   Who  being 
John  i,  ^  irighiness  of  His  glory,  and  Who  is  over  all,  God  blessed 
Heb.  i  ,  j?or  eveTm     Amen  . 

Kom.  9,      4.  They  had  best  have  been  silent;  but  since  it  is  otherwise, 
^'   9_    it   remains    to    meet  their  shameless  question  with  a  bold 

1  via.   'retort1.     Perhaps  on  seeing  the   counter  absurdities  which 
Basil.     ]jeset  themselves,  they  may  cease  to  fight  against  the  truth. 
Eunom.  After  many  prayers  c  then  that  God  would  be  gracious  to  us, 
"'  l7'     thus  we  might  ask  them  in  turn;  God  who  is,  has  He  so 

2  yiynn  become  2,  whereas  He  was  not?  or  is  He  also  before  His  gene- 

3  yi»nT«i  ration  3  ?  whereas  He  is,  did  He  make  Himself,  or  is  He  of 

nothing,  and  being  nothing  before,  did  He  suddenly  appear 
Himself?  Indecent  is  such  an  inquiry,  yea,  indecent  and 
very  blasphemous,  yet  parallel  with  theirs  ;  for  the  answer 
they  make,  abounds  in  irreligion.  But  if  it  be  blasphemous 
and  utterly  irreligious  thus  to  inquire  about  God,  it  will  be 
blasphemous  too  to  make  the  like  inquiries  about  His  Word. 
5-  However,  by  way  of  exposing  a  question  so  senseless 
and  so  dull,  it  is  necessary  to  answer  thus  :  —  whereas  God 
is,  He  was  eternally;  since  then  the  Father  is  ever.  His 
Radiance  ever  is,  which  is  His  Word.  And  again,  God  who 
is,  hath  from  Himself  His  Word  who  also  is;  and  neither  hath 

4  'wyi-  the  Word  been  added  *,  whereas  He  was  not  before,  nor  was 

the  Father  once  without  a  Word.  For  this  assault  upon  the 
Son  makes  the  blasphemy  recoil  upon  the  Father;  as  if  He 
devised  for  Himself  a  Wisdom,  and  Word,  and  Son  from 

P.  43,  without  5  ;  for  whichever  of  these  titles  you  use,  you  denote 
the  offspring  from  the  Father,  as  has  been  said.  So  that 
this  their  objection  does  not  hold;  and  naturally;  for  denying 
the  Word  they  in  consequence  ask  questions  which  are  ir- 

P.  2,  rational6.  As  then  if  a  person  saw  the  sun,  and  then  inquired 
concerning  its  radiance,  and  said,  "  Did  that  which  is  make 

c    This  cautious  and  reverent  way  Prgef.adMonach.  "Theunweariedhabit 

of  speaking   is   a  characteristic  of  S.  of  the  religious  man  is  to  worship  the  All 

Athanasius.     "  I  had  come  to  the  re-  (TO  sr*»)in  silence,  and  to  hymn  God  his 

solution  to  be  silent  at  this  time,  but  Benefactor  with  thankful  cries,  ----  but 

on  the  exhortation  of  your  holiness,  &c.  since,"  &c.  contr.  Apoll.  i.  init.     "  I 

I  have  in  few  words  written  this  Epistle,  must  ask  another  question,  bolder,  yet 

and  even  this  hardly,  of  which  do  you  with  a  religious  intention;  be  propitious, 

supply  the  defects,"  &c.  ad  Serap.  i.  1.  O  Lord,  &c."  Orat.  iii.  63.  vid.  p.  20, 

vid.ii.init.  adEpict.  13  fin.  ad  Max.  init.  ref.  1.  p.  25,  note  c.  p.  153,  note  d, 



Did  the  Father  needan  instrument  to  create,  He  not  perfect.  217 

that  which  was,  or  that  which  was  not,"  he  would  be  held  not  CHAP. 
to  reason  sensibly,  but  to  be  utterly  mazed,  because  he  fancied 

what  is  from  the  Light  to  be  external  to  it,  and  was  raising 
questions,  when  and  where  and  whether  it  were  made  ;  in  like 
manner,  thus  to  speculate  concerning  the  Son  and  the  Father 
and  thus  to  inquire,  is  far  greater  madness,  for  it  is  to  conceive 
of  the  Word  of  the  Father  as  external  to  Him,  and  to  image 
the  natural  offspring  as  a  work,  with  the  avowal,  "  He  was 
not  before  His  generation." 

6.  Nay,  let  them  over  and  above  take  this  answer  to  their 
question  ; — The  Father  who  was,  made  the  Son  who  was,  for 

the   Word  was  made  flesh ;    and,  whereas  He  was  Son  of  John  i, 
God,  He  made  Him  in  consummation  of  the  ages  also  Son  of 
Man,  unless  forsooth,  after  Samosatene,  they  affirm  that  He 
did  not  even  exist  at  all,  till  He  became  man. 

7.  This  is  sufficient  from  us  in  answer  to  their  first  ques-  §•  26. 
tion ;  and  now  on  your  part,  O  Arians,  remembering  your  own 
words,  tell  us  whether  He  who  was  needed  Him  who  was 

not  for  the  framing  of  the  universe,  or  Him  who  was?  Ye 
said  that  He  made  for  Himself  His  Son  out  of  nothing,  as  an 
instrument  whereby  to  make  the  universe.  Which  then  is 
superior,  that  which  needs  or  that  which  supplies  the  need  ? 
or  does  not  each  supply  the  deficiency  of  the  other  ?  \  e 
rather  prove  the  weakness  of  the  Maker,  if  He  had  not  power 
of  Himself  to  make  the  universe,  but  provided  for  Himself  an 
instrument  from  without*1,  as  carpenter  might  do  or  shipwright, 
unable  to  work  any  thing,  without  axe  and  saw  ?  Can  any 
thing  be  more  irreligious !  yet  why  should  one  dwell  on  its 
heinousness,  when  enough  has  gone  before  to  shew  that 
their  doctrine  is  a  mere  fantasy  ? 

d  fy>yuttv,  vid.  p.  12,  note  g.  p.  118,  Eccles.  Theol.  i.  8.  supr.  p.  62,  note  f. 
note  n.  p.  62,  note  f.  This  was  alleged  and  by  the  Anomceans,  supr.  p.  12, 
by  Arius,  Socr.  i.  6.  and  by  Eusebius,  note  x. 



Whether  we  may  decide  the  question  by  the  parallel  of  human  sons,  which  are 
born  later  than  their  parents.  No,  for  the  force  of  the  analogy  lies  in  the 
idea  of  connaturality.  Time  is  not  involved  in  the  idea  of  Son,  but  is 
adventitious  to  it,  and  does  not  attach  to  God,  because  He  is  without 
parts  and  passions.  The  titles  Word  and  Wisdom  guard  our  thoughts  of 
Him  and  His  Son  from  this  misconception.  God  not  a  Father,  as  a  Creator, 
in  posse  from  eternity,  because  creation  does  not  relate  to  the  substance 
of  God,  as  generation  does. 

DISC<  1.  NOR  is  answer  needful  to  their  other  very  simple  and 
*•  foolish  inquiry,  which  they  put  to  women ;  or  none  besides 
that  which  has  been  already  given,  namely,  that  it  is  not 
suitable  to  measure  divine  generation  by  the  nature  of  men. 
However,  that  as  before  they  may  pass  judgment  on  them- 
selves, it  is  well  to  meet  them  on  the  same  ground,  thus : — 
Plainly,  if  they  inquire  of  parents  concerning  their  son,  let 
them  consider  whence  is  the  child  which  is  begotten.  For, 
granting  the  parent  had  not  a  son  before  his  begetting,  still, 
after  having  him,  he  had  him,  not  as  external  or  as  foreign, 
but  as  from  himself,  and  proper  to  his  substance  and  his 
unvarying  image,  so  that  the  former  is  beheld  in  the  latter, 
and  the  latter  is  contemplated  in  the  former.  If  then  they 
assume  from  human  examples  that  generation  implies  time, 
why  not  from  the  same  infer  that  it  implies  the  Natural  and 
the  Proper  %  instead  of  extracting  serpent-like  from  the  earth 
only  what  turns  to  poison  ?  Those  who  ask  of  parents,  and 

a  supr.  p.  13,  note  u.  The  question  other  hand,  said  that  to  suppose  a  true 
was,  What  was  that  sense  of  Son  which  Son,  was  to  think  of  God  irreverently, 
would  apply  to  the  Divine  Nature  ?  The  as  implying  division,  change,  &c.  The 
Catholics  said  that  its  essential  mean-  Catholics  replied  that  the  notion  of 
ing  could  apply,  viz.  consubstantiality,  materiality  was  quite  as  foreign  from 
whereas  the  point  of  posteriority  to  the  the  Divine  Essence  as  time,  and  as  the 
.bather  depended  on  a  condition,  time,  Divine  Sonship  was  eternal,  so  was  it 
which  could  not  exist  in  the  instance  of  also  clear  both  of  imperfection  or  ex- 
God,  p.  16,  note  k.  The  Arians  on  the  tension. 

God's  Son  like  man>s9in  connaturality^not  in  point  of  time.  219 

say,  "  Hadst  thou  a  Son  before   thou   didst   beget   him  ?"  CHAP. 
should  add,  "  And  if  thou  hadst  a  son,  didst  thou  purchase  -ZHL_ 
him  from  without  as  a  house  or  any  other  possession  *  ?"    And  *  p-  21. 
then  thou  wouldest  be  answered, "  He  is  not  from  without,  but 
from  myself."  For  things  which  are  from  without  are  possessions, 
and  pass  from  one  to  another ;  but  my  son  is  from  me,  proper 
and  similar  to  my  substance  2,  not  become  mine  from  another,  2  p.  210 
but  begotten  of  me ;  wherefore  I  too  am  wholly  in  him,  while  note  e* 
I  remain  myself  what  I  amb."   For  so  it  is;  though  the  parent 
be  distinct  in  time,  as  being  man,  who  himself  has  come  to 
be  in  time,  yet  he  too  would  have  had  his  child  ever  co- 
existent with  him,  but  that  his  nature  was  a  restraint  and 
made  it  impossible.     For  Levi  too  was  already  in  the  loins  of 
his   great-grandfather,  before   his  own   generation,  and   his 
grandfather  begot  him.     When  then  the  man  comes  to  that  age 
at  which  nature  supplies  the  power,  immediately,  with  nature 
unrestrained,  he  becomes  father  of  the  son  from  himself.    There-  §.  27. 
fore,  if  on  asking  parents  about  children,  they  get  for  answer,  that 
children  which  are  by  nature  are  not  from  without,  but  from 
their  parents,  let  them  confess  in  like  manner  concerning  the 
Word  of  God,  that  He  is  simply  from  the  Father.     And  if 
they  make  a  question  of  the  time,  let  them  say  what  is  to 
restrain  God   (for   it  is   necessary  to   prove  their  irreligion 

h  It  is  from  expressions  such  as  this  Emperor's  countenance  and  form  are  in 

that  the  Greek  Fathers  have  been  ac-  His   Image,    and  the   countenance   of 

cused  of  tri theism.     The  truth  is,  every  His  Image  is  in   the  Emperor.     For 

illustration,  as  being  incomplete  on  one  the  Emperor's  likeness  in  His  Image  is 

or  other  side  of  it,  taken  by  itself,  tends  an  unvarying  likeness,  asr«g«AXaxT*f ,  so 

to  heresy.  The  title  Son  byitself  suggests  that  he  who  looks  upon  the  Image,  in 

a  second  God,  as  the  title  "Word  a  mere  it  sees  the  Emperor,  and  again  he  who 

attribute,  and  the  title  Instrument  a  sees  the  Emperor,  recognises  that  He 

creature.      All     heresies    are    partial  is  in  the  Image.   The  Image  then  might 

views  of  the  truth,  and  are  wrong,  not  say,  '  I  and  the  Emperor  are  one.'  " 

so  much  in  what  they  say,  as  in  what  Orat.  iii.  §.  5.      And  thus  the  Auctor 

they  deny.      The  truth,  on   the  other  de  Trin.  refers  to  "  Peter,  Paul,  and 

hand,  is  a  positive  and  comprehensive  Timothy  having  three  subsistencies  and 

doctrine,  and  in  consequence  necessarily  one  humanity."  i.  p.  918.  S.  Cyril  even 

mysterious  and  open  to  misconception,  seems  to  deny  that  each  individual  man 

vid.   p.   43,   note    d.  p.    140,   note  n.  may  be  considered  a  separate  substance 

When  Athan.  implies  that  the  Eternal  except  as  the  Three  Persons  are  such. 

Father  is  in  the  Son,  though  remaining  Dial.  i.  p.  409.  and  S.  Gregory  Nyssen 

what  He  is,  as  a  man  in  his  child,  he  is  led  to  say  that,  strictly  speaking,  the 

is  intent  only  upon  the   point  of  the  abstract  man,  which  is  predicated  of 

Son's  connaturality  and  equality,  which  separate  individuals,  is  still  one,  and 

the  Arians  denied.     In  like  manner  he  this  with   a  view    of  illustrating   the 

says  in  a  later  Discourse,  "  In  the  Son  Divine  Unity,  ad  Ablab.  t.  2.  p.  449. 

the  Father's  godhead  is  teheld.     The  \id.  Petav.  de  Trin.  iv.  9. 

220  As  Son  images  connaturality,  so  Radiance  co-existence, 

Disc,  on  the  very  ground  on  which  their  scoff  is  made),  let  them 

__ L  tell  us,  what  is  there  to  hinder  God  from  being  always 
Father  of  the  Son ;  for  that  what  is  begotten  must  be  from  its 
father  is  undeniable. 

2.  Moreover,  they  will  pass  judgment  on  themselves  as  to  all 
such  speculations  concerning  God,  if,  as  they  questioned  women 
on  the  subject  of  time,  so  they  inquire  of  the  sun  concerning  its 

!p.  20.  radiance,  and  of  the  fountain  concerning  its  issue1.  They 
will  find  that  these,  though  an  offspring,  always  exist  with 
those  things  from  which  they  arec.  And  if  parents,  such  as 
these,  have  in  common  with  their  children  nature  and 
duration,  why,  if  they  suppose  God  inferior  to  things  that 
come  to  be d,  do  they  not  openly  say  out  then*  own  irreligion  ? 
But  if  they  do  not  dare  to  say  this  openly,  and  the  Son  is  con- 
fessed to  be,  not  from  without,  but  a  natural  offspring  from 
the  Father,  and  that  there  is  nothing  which  is  a  hindrance  to 
God,  (for  not  as  man  is  He,  but  more  than  the  sun,  or  rather 
the  God  of  the  sun,)  it  follows  that  the  Word  co-exists  with 
the  Father  both  as  from  Him  and  as  ever,  through  whom  the 
Father  caused  that  all  things  which  were  not  should  be.  That 
then  the  Son  comes  not  of  nothing  but  is  eternal  and  from 
the  Father,  is  certain  even  from  the  nature  of  the  case ;  and 
the  question  of  the  heretics  to  parents  exposes  their  per- 
verseness ;  for  they  confess  the  point  of  nature,  and  now  have 
been  put  to  shame  on  the  point  of  time. 

§.  28.  3.  As  we  said  above,  so  now  we  repeat,  that  the  divine 
generation  must  not  be  compared  to  the  nature  of  men,  nor 
the  Son  considered  to  be  part  of  God,  nor  generation  to 
imply  any  passion  whatever;  God  is  not  as  man;  for 
men  beget  passibly,  having  a  transitive  nature,  which 
waits  for  periods  by  reason  of  its  weakness.  But  with 
God  this  cannot  be;  for  He  is  not  composed  of  parts, 
but  being  impassible  and  simple,  He  is  impassibly  and 

c  The  question  is  not,  whether  in  d  S.  Athanasius's  doctrine  is,  that, 
matterof  fact,  in  the  particular  case,  the  GodcontaininginHimself  all  perfection, 
rays  would  issue  after,  and  not  with  the  whatever  is  excellent  in  one  created 
first  existence  of  the  luminous  body;  for  thing  above  another,  is  found  in  its 
the  illustration  is  not  used  to  shew  how  perfection  in  Him.  If  then  such  gene- 
such  a  thing  may  be,  or  to  give  an  ration  as  radiance  from  light  is  more 
instanced  it,  but  to  convey  to  the  mind  perfect  than  that  of  children  from 
a  correct  idea  of  what  it  is  proposed  to  parents,  that  belongs,  and  transcend- 
teach  in  the  Catholic  doctrine.  ently,  to  the*  All-perfect  God. 

and  "  Word"  immateriality. 

indivisibly   Father    of   the   Son1.      This   again  is   strongly  CHAP. 

evidenced  and  proved  by  divine  Scripture.     For  the  Word  t - 

of  God  is  His  Son,  and  the  Son  is  the  Father's  Word  and 
Wisdom ;    and  Word  and  Wisdom  is  neither  creature  nor 
part  of  Him  whose  Word  He  is,  nor  an  offspring  passibly 
begotten.     Uniting  then  the  two  titles2,  Scripture  speaks  of2?.  140, 
"  Son,"  in  order  to  herald  the  offspring  of  His  substance nc 
natural  and  true;    and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  none  may 
think  of  the  Offspring  humanly,  while  signifying  His  sub- 
stance, it  also  calls  Him  Word,  Wisdom,  and  Radiance ;  to 
teach  us  that  the  generation  was  impassible,  and  eternal,  and 
worthy  of  Gode.     What  affection  then,  or  what  part  of  the 
Father  is  the  Word  and  the  Wisdom  and  the  Radiance? 
So  much  may  be  impressed  even  on  these  men  of  folly ;  for 
as  they  asked  women  concerning  God's  Son,  so3  let  them3Orat. 
inquire  of  men  concerning  the  Word,  and  they  will  find  that U1*  67' 
the  Word  which  they  put  forth  is  neither  an  affection  of 
them  nor  a  part  of  their  mind.     But  if  such  be  the  word  of 
men,  who  are   passible   and   partitive,  why   speculate  they 
about  passions  and  parts  in  the  instance  of  the  immaterial 
and  indivisible  God,  that  under  pretence  of  reverence f  they 
may  deny  the  true  and  natural  generation  of  the  Son  ? 

e  This  is  a  view  familiar  to  the  Christum  per  naturalia  mulieris-1  de- 
Fathers,  viz.  that  in  this  consists  our  scendisse  confitear ;  ipse  enim  testimo- 
Lord's  Sonship,  that  He  is  the  "Word  niumdat,quiadesinibusPatrisdescendit. 
or  as  S.  Augustine  says,  Christum  ideo  Archel.  Disp.  p.  185.  "  We,  as  saying 
Filium  quia  Verbum.  Aug.  Ep.  102.  11.  that  the  Word  of  God  is  incapable  of 
"  If  God  is  the  Father  of  a  Word,  why  is  defilement,  even  by  the  assumption  of 
not  He  which  is  begotten  a  Son?"  de  mortal  and  vulnerable  flesh,  fear  not  to 
Deer.  §.  17-supr.  p.  27.  "  If  I  speak  of  believe  that  He  is  born  of  a  Virgin  ;  ye" 
Wisdom,  I  speak  of  His  offspring."  Manichees,  "because  with  impious per- 
Theoph.  ad  Autolyc.  i.  3.  "  The  Word,  verseness  ye  believe  the  Son  of  God  to 
the  genuine  Son  of  Mind."  Clem.  Pro-  be  capable  of  it,  dread  to  commie  him  to 
trept.p.58.  Petavius  discusses  this  sub-  the  flesh."  August,  contr.  Secund.  9. 
ject  accurately  with  reference  to  the  dis-  Faustus  "is  neither  willing  to  receive 
tinction  between  Divine  generation  and  Jesus  of  the  seed  of  David,  nor  made  of 
Divine  Procession,  de  Trin.  vii.  14.  a  woman nor  the  death  of  Christ 

f  Heretics  have  frequently  assigned  itself,  and  burial,  and  resurrection,  &c." 

reverence  as  the  cause  of  their  oppo-  August,  contr.  Faust,  xi.  3.  As  the 

sition  to  the  Church  ;  and  if,  even  Manichees  denied  our  Lord  a  body,  so 

Arius  affected  it,  the  plea  may  be  ex-  the  Apollinarians  denied  Him  a  rational 

pected  in  any  other.  "  O  stultos  et  soul,  still  under  pretence  of  reverence, 

impios  metus,"  says  S.  Hilary,  "  et  because,  as  they  said,  the  soul  was  neces- 

irreligionem  de  Deo  sollicitudinem."de  sarily  sinful.  Leontius  makes  this  their 

Trin.iv.  6.  It  was  still  more  commonly  main  argument,  o  veus  a.^K^Tn-riKOf  iffrt. 

professed  in  regard  to  the  Catholic  doc-  de  Sect.  iv.  p.  507.  vid.  also  Greg.  Naz. 

trine  of  the  Incarnation.  Thus  Manes,  Ep.  101.  ad  Cledon.  p.  89.  Athan.  in 

Absit  ut  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Apoll.  i.  2.  14.  Epiph.  Ancor.  79.  80. 

222        The  Eternal  Son  is  not  of  will,  but  of  nature. 

Disc.       4.  Enough  was  said  above  to  shew  that  the  offspring  from 
__L God  is  not  an  affection ;  and  now  it  has  been  shewn  in  par- 
ticular that  the  Word  is  not  begotten  according  to  affection. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  Wisdom ;  God  is  not  as  man  ;  nor 
must  they  here  think  humanly  of  Him.     For,  whereas  men 
are   capable  of  wisdom,   God   partakes   in  nothing,  but  is 
Himself  the  Father  of  His  own  Wisdom,  of  which  whoso  par- 
takes is  given  the  name  of  wise.     And  this  Wisdom  is  not  a 
passion,  nor  a  part,  but  an  Offspring  proper  to  the  Father. 
Wherefore  He  is  ever  Father,  nor  is  the  character  of  Father 
1  l«r/yi-  adventitious1  to  God,  lest  He  seem  alterable ;  for  if  it  is  good 
ym       that  He  be  Father,  yet  He  has  not  ever  been  Father,  then 

good  has  not  ever  been  in  Him. 

§.  29.  5.  But,  observe,  say  they,  God  was  always  a  Maker,  nor  is  the 
power  of  framing  adventitious  to  Him ;  does  it  follow  then, 
that,  because  He  is  the  Framer  of  all,  therefore  His  works 
also  are  eternal,  and  is  it  wicked  to  say  of  them  too,  that 
they  were  not  before  generation  ?  Senseless  are  these  Arians ; 
for  what  likeness  is  there  between  Son  and  Work,  that  they 
should  parallel  a  father's  with  a  maker's  function  ?  How  is  it 
that,  with  that  difference  between  offspring  and  work,  which  has 
been  shewn,  they  remain  so  ill-instructed?  Let  it  be  repeated 
then,  that  a  work  is  external  to  the  nature,  but  a  Son  is  the 
proper  offspring  of  the  substance;  it  follows  that  a  work  need 
not  have  been  always,  for  the  workman  frames  it  when  He 
will;  but  an  offspring  is  not  subject  to  will,  but  is  pro- 
avid.  per  to  the  substance2.  And  a  man  may  be  and  may  be 

Orat.iii.  J                             J 



Athan.  &c.  call  the  Apollinarian  doc-  tus,"  &c.  Leon.  Ep.  21.  1  fin.     "  For- 

trine  Manichean  in  consequence,  vid.  in  bid   it,"    he   says    at   Constantinople, 

Apoll.  ii.  8. 9.  &c.  Again,  the  Eranistes  "  that  I  should  say  that  the  Christ  was 

in  Theodoret,  who  advocates  a  similar  of  two  natures,  or  should  discuss  the 

doctrine,  will  not  call  our  Lord  man.  nature,  QvfftoXo'ytTv,  of  my  God."  Concil. 

"  I  consider  it  important  to  acknow-  t.  2.  p.  157.    And  so  in  this  day  popular 

ledge  an  assumed  nature,  but  to  call  Tracts  have  been  published,  ridiculing 

the  Saviour   of  the  world   man  is    to  St.  Luke's  account  of  our  Lord's  nativity 

impair  our  Lord's  glory."  Eranist.  ii.  under  pretence  of  reverence  towards  the 

p.  83.     Eutyches,  on  the  other  hand,  God  of  all,  and  interpreting  Scripture 

would  call  our  Lord  man,  but  refused  to  allegorically  on  Pantheistic  principles, 

admit  His  human  nature,  and  still  with  A  modern  argument  for  Universal  Re- 

the  same  profession.    "  Ego,"  he  says,  stitution  takes  the  same  form  ;  "  Do  not 

"  sciens  sanctos  et  beatos  patres  nostros  we  shrink  from  the  notion  of  another's 

refutantes  duarum  naturarum  vocabu-  being  sentenced  to  eternal  punishment ; 

lum,  et  non  audens  de  natura  tractare  and  are  we  more  merciful  than  God?" 

Dei  Verbi,   qui   in   carnem   venit,  in  vid.  Matt.  xvi.  22,  23. 
veritate  non  in  phantasmate  homo  fac- 


called  Maker,  though  the  works  are  not  as  yet ;    but  father  CHAP. 

he  cannot  be  called,  nor  can  he  be,  unless  a  son  exist.    And — 

if  they  curiously  inquire  why  God,  though  always  with  the 
power  to  make,  does  not  always  make,  (though  this  also  be 
the  presumption  of  madmen,  for  who  hath  known  the  mind  Rom. 
of  the  Lord,  or  who  hath  been  His  Counsellor?  or  how  shall  ^^^ 
the  thing  formed  say  to  the  potter,  why  hast  thou  made  me  20. 
thus?  however,  not  to  leave  even  a  weak  argument  un- 
noticed,) they  must  be  told,  that  although  God  always  had  the 
power  to  execute,  yet  the  things  generated  had  not  the  power 
of  being  eternal g.  For  they  are  out  of  nothing,  and  therefore 
were  not  before  their  generation ;  but  things  which  were  not 
before  their  generation,  how  could  these  co-exist  with  the 
ever-existing  God?  Wherefore  God,  looking  to  what  was  good 
for  them,  then  made  them  all  when  He  saw  that,  when  pro- 
duced, they  were  able  to  abide.  And  as,  though  He  was 
able,  even  from  the  beginning  in  the  time  of  Adam,  or  Noe, 
or  Moses,  to  send  His  own  Word,  yet  He  sent  Him  not  until 
the  consummation  of  the  ages ;  for  this  He  saw  to  be  good  for  the 
whole  creation,  so  also  things  generated  did  He  make  when 
He  would,  and  as  was  good  for  them.  But  the  Son,  not  being 
a  work,  but  proper  to  the  Father's  offspring,  always  is ;  for, 
whereas  the  Father  always  is,  so  what  is  proper  to  His  sub- 
stance must  always  be ;  and  this  is  His  Word  and  His 
Wisdom.  And  that  creatures  should  not  be  in  existence, 
does  not  disparage  the  Maker;  for  He  hath  the  power  of 
framing  them,  when  He  wills ;  but  for  the  offspring  not  to  be 
ever  with  the  Father,  is  a  disparagement  of  the  perfection  of 
His  substance.  Wherefore  His  works  were  framed,  when 
He  would,  through  His  Word;  but  the  Son  is  ever  the  proper 
offspring  of  the  Father's  substance. 

8  Athan.'s  argument  is  as  follows :  shall  perish,"  in  the  Psalm,  not  as  a 

that,  as  it  is  of  the  essence  of  a  son  to  fact  but  as  the  definition  of  the  nature 

he  connatural  w  ith  the  father,  so  is  it  of  of  a  creature.  Also  ii.  §.  1 .  where  he  says, 

theessewceofacreaturetobeofmrfAm^,  "It  is  proper  to  creatures  and  works 

t£  «v*  ovruv ;  therefore,  while  it  was  not  to  have  said  of  jthem,  \l  eux  otrat  and  tvx 

impossible  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  jv   v$i  ytvvnfa,"   vid.  Cyril.  Thesaur. 

for  Almighty  God  is  to  be  always  Father,  9.  p.  67.  Dial.  ii.  p.  460.  on  the  question 

it  was  impossible  for  the  same  reason  of  being  a  Creator  in  posse,  vid.  supra, 

that  He  should  be  always  a  Creator,  p.  65,  note  m. 
vid.  infr.  §.  58.  where  he  takes,  "  They 



Whether  is  the  Ingenerate  one  or  two  ?  Inconsistent  in  Arians  to  use  an 
unseriptural  word;  necessary  to  define  its  meaning.  Different  senses  of 
the  word.  If  it  means  "  without  Father,"  there  is  but  One  Ingenerate  ; 
if  "without  beginning  or  creation,"  there  are  two.  Inconsistency  of 
Asterius.  "  Ingenerate  "  a  title  of  God,  not  in  contrast  with  the  Son,  but 
with  creatures,  as  is  "  Almighty,"  or  "  Lord  of  powers."  "  Father  "  is 
the  truer  title,  as  not  only  Scriptural,  but  implying  a  Son,  and  our  adop- 
tion as  sons. 

Disc.  1.  THESE  considerations  encourage  the  faithful,  and  distress 
__L__the  heretical,  perceiving,  as  they  do,  their  heresy  overthrown 
§.  30.  thereby.  Moreover,  their  further  question  "  whether  the  Inge- 
nerate be  one  or  two3,"  shews  how  false  are  their  views,  how 
treacherous  and  full  of  guile.  Not  for  the  Father's  honour 
ask  they  this,  but  for  the  dishonour  of  the  Word.  Accord- 
ingly, should  any  one,  not  aware  of  their  craft,  answer, 
"  the  Ingenerate  is  one,"  forthwith  they  spirt  out  their  own 
venom,  saying,  "  Therefore  the  Son  is  among  things  generate, 
and  well  have  we  said,  He  was  not  before  His  generation." 
Thus  they  make  any  kind  of  disturbance  and  confusion,  pro- 

a  The  word  ayiwnrov  was  in  the  phi-  Their  view  is  drawn  out  at  length  in 

losophical    schools    synonymous    with  Epiph.  Hser.  76.  S.  Athanasius  does  not 

"God;"    hence    by    asking    whether  go  into  this  question,  but  rather  confines 

there  were  two  Ingenerates,  the  Ano-  himself  to  the  more  popular  form  of  it, 

mceans    implied   that  there  were  two  viz.  the  Son  is  by  His  very  name  not 

Gods,  if  Christ  was  God  in  the  sense  Ayivvuryf,  but  yttvtjrof,  but  all  yivvjjra 

in    which    the    Father    was.      Hence  are  creatures  ;  which  he  answers,   as 

Athan.  retorts,  <PK*XHTIS,  ol  Myoptv  $uo  de  Deer.  §.  28.  supr.  p.  53.  by  saying 

ayt'wjra,  Xtyeoiri  ^v»  hovs-  Orat.  iii.  16.  that  Christianity  had  brought  in  a  new 

also  ii.  38.  Plato  used  a-yiwnrov  of  the  idea  into  theology,  viz.  the  sacred  doc- 

Supreme  God,  (supr.  p.  51,  note  b.)  the  trineof  a  true  Son,!*  T'VK  olffia.s-  Thiswas 

Valentinians,    Tertull.  contr.  Val.   7.  what  the  Arians  had  originally  denied, 

and    Basilides,    Epiph.  Hser.  31.    10.  Sv  ™  <£yimjT«v,  tv  ft  TO  &v*  aiirov  favtSg, 

S.  Clement  uses  it,  supr.  p.  147,  note  t.  *«/  olx  I*  <r*s  oltritts  etv-rou.  Euseb.  Nic. 

and  S.  Ignatius  applies  it  to  tbe  Son,  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  5.  When  they  were 

p.  147.  S.  Dionysius  Alex,  puts  as  an  urged  what  according  to  them  was  the 

hypothesis  in  controversy  the  very  posi-  middle  idea  to  which  the  Son  answered, 

tion  of  the  Anomceans,  on  which  their  if  they  would  not  accept  the  Catholic, 

whole    argument   turned,    ap.    Euseb.  they  would  not  define  but  merely  said, 

PraRp.  VIK  19.   viz.  that  f>  ayivvwa  is  yi»yqu«,  £xx'  evx,  ut  »»  v 

the  very  ovna,  of  God,  not  an  attribute,  vid.  p.  10,  note  u. 

Different  senses  of  the  word  "  Ingenerate.'"          '2-25 

vided  they  can  but  separate  the  Son  from  the  Father,  and  CHAP. 
reckon  the  Framer  of  all  among  His  works.     Now  first  they    IX'  - 
may  be   convicted    on    this   score,  that,  while   blaming  the 
Nicene   Bishops  for  their  use  of  phrases  not  in  Scripture, 
though  these  not  injurious,  but  subversive  of  their  irreligion, 
they    themselves   went   off  upon   the    same    fault,   that   is, 
using  words  not  in  Scripture  *,  and  those  in  contumely  of  the  l  p.  31, 
Lord,  knowing   neither   what    they   say   nor   whereof  they™^-^ 
affirm.     For  instance,  let  them  ask  the  Greeks,  who  have  *>  7. 
been  their  instructors,  (for  it  is  a  word  of  their  invention, 
not  Scripture,)  and  when  they  have  been  instructed  in  its 
various   significations,    then    they   will    discover   that    they 
cannot  even  question   properly,  on  the   subject  which  they 
have  undertaken.     For  they  have  led  me  to  ascertain2  that2P-52> 
by  "  ingenerate"  is  meant  what  has  not  yet  come  to  be,  but  is 
possible   to   be,  as  wood  which  is  not  yet  become,  but   is 
capable  of  becoming,  a  vessel ;  and  again  what  neither  has 
nor  ever  can  come  to  be,  as  a  triangle  quadrangular,  and  an 
even  number  odd.     For  neither  has  nor  ever  can  a  triangle 
become  quadrangular ;  nor  has  ever,  nor  can  ever,  even  be- 
come odd.     Moreover,  by  "  ingenerate"  is  meant,  what  ex- 
ists, but  not  generated  from  any,  nor  having  a  father  at  all. 
Further,  Asterius,  that  unprincipled  sophist,  the  patron  too  of 
this  heresy,  has  added  in  his  own  treatise,  that  what  is  not 
made,  but  is  ever,  is  "  ingenerate  V     They  ought  then,  when 
they  ask  the  question,  to  add  in  what  sense  they  take  the 
word  "  ingenerate,"  and  then  the  parties  questioned  would  be 
able  to  answer  to  the  point. 

2.  But  if  they  still  are  satisfied  with  merely  asking,  "  Is  §•  31. 
the  Ingenerate  one  or  two  ?"  they  must  be  told  first  of  all,  as 
ill-educated  men,  that  many  are  such  and  nothing  is  such, 
many  which  are  capable  of  generation,  and  nothing  is  not 

b  The   two  first  senses  here  given  Athan.  used  his  former  writings  and 

answer  to  the  two  first  mentioned,  de  worked  over  again  his  former  ground, 

Deer.  §.  28.  and,  as  he  there  says,  are  and  simplified  or  cleared  what  he  had 

plainly  irrelevant.    The  third  in  the  de  said.  In  the  de  Deer.  A.D.  350,  we  have 

Deer,  which,  as  he  there  observes,  is  am-  three  senses  of  ayinuro*,  two  irrelevant 

biguous  and  used  for  a  sophistical  pur-  and  the  third  ambiguous;  here  in  Orat. 

pose,  is  here  divided  into  third  andfourth,  1.  (358,)  he  divides  the  third  into  two; 

answering  to  the  two  senses  which  alone  in  the  de  Syn.  (359,)  he   rejects  and 

are  assigned  in  the  de  Syn.  §.  46.  and  omits  the  two  first,  leaving    the  two 

on  them  the  question  turns.    This  is  an  last,  which  are  the  critical  senses, 
instance,  of  which  many   occur,    how 

2-20  Its  different  senses  distinguished. 

Disc,  capable,  as  has  been  said.  But  if  they  ask  according  as 
L  Asterius  ruled  it,  as  if"  what  is  not  a  work  but  was  always"  were 
ingenerate,  then  they  must  constantly  be  told  that  the  Son  as 
well  as  the  Father  must  in  this  sense  be  called  ingenerate. 
For  He  is  neither  in  the  number  of  things  generated,  nor  a 
work,  but  has  ever  been  with  the  Father,  as  has  already  been 
shewn,  in  spite  of  their  many  variations  for  the  sole  sake  of 
testifying  against  the  Lord,  "  He  is  of  nothing"  and  "  He 
was  not  before  His  generation."  When  then,  after  failing  at 
every  turn,  they  betake  themselves  to  the  other  sense  of  the 
question,  "  existing  but  not  generated  of  any  nor  having  a 
father,"  we  shall  tell  them  that  the  Ingenerate  in  this  sense  is 
only  one,  namely  the  Father  ;  and  they  will  take  nothing  by 
their  question  c.  For  to  say  that  God  is  in  this  sense  In- 
generate, does  not  shew  that  the  Son  is  a  thing  generate,  it 
being  evident  from  the  above  proofs  that  the  Word  is  such  as 
He  is  who  begat  Him.  Therefore  if  God  be  ingenerate,  His 

1  p.  209,  Image  is  not  generate,  but  an  Offspring  l,  which  is  His  Word 

and  His  Wisdom.  For  what  likeness  has  the  generate  to  the 
Ingenerate  ?  (one  must  not  weary  to  use  repetition  ;)  for  if 
they  will  have  it  that  the  one  is  like  the  other,  so  that  he 
who  sees  the  one  beholds  the  other,  they  are  like  to  say 
that  the  Ingenerate  is  the  image  of  creatures  ;  the  end  of  which 
is  a  confusion  of  the  whole  subject,  an  equalling  of  things  gene- 
rated with  the  Ingenerate,  and  a  denial  of  the  Ingenerate  by 
measuring  Him  with  the  works  :  and  all  to  reduce  the  Son  into 
their  number. 

§.  32.  3.  However,  I  suppose  even  they  will  be  unwilling  to  pro- 
ceed to  such  lengths,  if  they  follow  Asterius  the  sophist.  For 
he,  earnest  as  he  is  in  his  advocacy  of  the  Arian  heresy,  and 
maintaining  that  the  Ingenerate  is  one,  runs  counter  to  them 
in  saying,  that  the  Wisdom  of  God  is  ingenerate  and  un- 

2  deSyn.  originate  also;  the  following  is  a  passage  out  of  his  work4: 
ibi.infr."The  Blessed  Paul  said  not  that  he  preached  Christ  the 
ii.  37.    power  of  God  or  the  wisdom  of  God,  but,  without  the  article, 
iCor.i,  God's  power  and  God's  wisdom;    thus  preaching  that  the 

proper  power  of  God  Himself,  which  is  natural  to  Him  and 

f»  A  °f  &*intir»  un-     &Y»'»™  and  tynwn.    vid.  Damasc. 

SI     JS  ,?"!?•  We-re  afterwards     F-  O.   i.   8.   p.   136.  and  Le  Quien'e 
expressed  by  the  distinction  of  w  and  v,     not 

Admission  of  Aster  ins  unfavourable  to  the  Arians.    2*27 

co-existent  with  Him  ingenerately,  is  something  besides."  CHAP. 
And  again,  soon  after :  "  However,  His  eternal  power  and 
wisdom,  which  truth  argues  to  be  imoriginate  and  ingenerate ; 
this  must  surely  be  one."  For  though  misunderstanding  the 
Apostle's  words,  he  considered  that  there  were  two  wisdoms ; 
yet,  by  speaking  still  of  a  wisdom  co-existent  with  Him,  he 
declares  that  the  Ingenerate  is  not  simply  one,  but  that  there 
is  another  ingenerate  with  Him.  For  what  is  co-existent,  co- 
exists not  with  itself,  but  with  another.  If  then  they  agree 
with  Asterius,  let  them  never  ask  again,  "  Is  the  Ingenerate 
one  or  two,"  or  they  will  have  to  contest  the  point  with  him ; 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  differ  even  from  him,  let  them  not 
take  up  their  defence  upon  his  treatise,  lest,  biting  one  Gal.  5, 
another,  they  be  consumed  one  of  another. 

4.  So  much  on  the  point  of  their  ignorance ;  but  who  can 
say  enough  on  their  want  of  principle  ?  who  but  would  justly 
hate  them  while  possessed  by  such  a  madness  ?  for  when  they 
were  no  longer  allowed  to  say  "  out  of  nothing"  and  "  He  was 
not  before  His  generation,"  they  hit  upon  this  word  "  ingene- 
rate," that,  by  saying  among  the  simple  that  the  Son  was 
generate,  they  might  imply  the  very  same  phrases  "  out  of 
nothing,"  and  "  He  once  was  not;"  for  in  such  phrases 
things  generate  and  creatures  are  implied.  If  they  have  §.33. 
confidence  in  their  own  positions,  they  should  stand  to  them, 
and  not  change  about  so  variously  * ;  but  this  they  will  not, l  p-  84, 
from  an  idea  that  success  is  easy,  if  they  do  but  shelter  their 
heresy  under  colour  of  the  word  "  ingenerate."  Yet  after  all, 
this  term  is  not  used  in  contrast  with  the  Son,  clamour  as 
they  may,  but  with  things  generate  ;  and  the  like  may  be 
found  in  the  words  "  Almighty"  and  "  Lord  of  the  Powers d." 
For  if  we  say  that  the  Father  has  power  and  mastery  over  all 
things  by  the  Word,  and  the  Son  rules  the  Father's  kingdom, 
and  has  the  power  of  all,  as  His  Word,  and  as  the  Image  of 
the  Father,  it  is  quite  plain  that  neither  here  is  the  Son 

d    The    passage    which    follows    is  Athan.  shews  us  the  care  with  which 

written  with  his  de  Decr.before  him.  At  he  made  his  doctrinal  statements, though 

first  he  hut  uses  the  same  topics,  hut  they  seem  at  first  sight  written  off.     It 

presently  he  incorporates  into  this  Dis-  also  accounts  for  the  diffuseness   and 

course  an  actual  portion  of  his  former  repetition  which  might  be  imputed  to 

work,  with  only  such  alterations  as  an  his  composition,  what  seems  superfluous 

author  commonly  makes  in  transcribing,  being  often  only  the  insertion  of  an  ex- 

This,  which    is   not  unfrequent   with  tract  from  a  former  work. 


•228  God  In  generate  relatively  to  works,  Fa  ther  relatively  to  Son . 

Disc,  reckoned  among  that  all,  nor  is  God  called  Almighty  and 
*•      Lord  with  reference  to  Him,  but  to  those  things  which  through 
the  Son  come   to  be,  and  over  which  He  exercises  power 
and  mastery  through  the  Word.    And  therefore  the  Ingenerate 
is  specified  not  by  contrast  to  the  Son,  but  to  the  things  which 
through  the  Son  come  to  be.    And  excellently :  since  God  is 
not  as  things  generate,  but  is  their  Creator  and  Framer  through 
the  Son.   And  as  the  word  "  Ingenerate"  is  specified  relatively 
to  things  generate,  so  the  word  "  Father"  is  indicative  of  the 
Son.     And  he  who  names  God  Maker  and  Framer  and  In- 
generate, regards  and  apprehends  things  created  and  gene- 
rated ;  and  he  who  calls  God  Father,  thereby  conceives  and 
contemplates  the  Son.     And  hence  one  might  marvel  at  the 
obstinacy  which  is  added  to  their  irreligion,  that,  whereas  the 
term  "  ingenerate"  has  the  aforesaid  good  sense,  and  admits 
"deSyn.of  being  used  religiously1,  they,  in  their  own  heresy,  bring  it 
p  i4~    forth  for  the  dishonour  of  the  Son,  not  having  read  that  he 
vid.        who  honoureth  the  Son  honoureth  the  Father,  and  he  who 
John  5,  dishonoureth  the  Son,  dishonoured  the  Father.     If  they  had 
any  concern  at  all6  for  reverent  speaking  and  the  honour  due  to 
the  Father,  it  became  them  rather,  and  this  were  better  and 
higher,  to  acknowledge  and  call  God  Father,  than  to  give 
Him  this  name.     For,  in  calling  God  ingenerate,  they  are,  as 
I  said  before,  calling  Him  from  His  works,  and  as  Maker 
only  and   Framer,  supposing   that   hence   they  may  imply 
that   the  Word  is  a  work  after  their  own   pleasure.      But 
that  He  who  calls  God  Father,  names  Him  from  the  Son, 
being  well  aware  that  if  there  be  a  Son,  of  necessity  through 
that  Son  all  things  generate  were  created.     And  they,  when 
they  call  Him  Ingenerate,  name  Him  only  from  His  works, 
and  know  not  the  Son  any  more  than  the  Greeks ;  but  He 
who  calls  God  Father,  names  Him  from  the  Word;   and 
knowing  the  Word,  He  acknowledges  Him  to  be  Framer  of 
all,  and  understands  that  through  Him  all  things  were  made. 
§.  34.      5.  Therefore  it  is  more  pious  and  more  accurate  to  denote 
God  from  the  Son  and  call  Him  Father,  than  to  name  Him 
from  His  works  only  and  call  Him  Ingenerate f.     For  the 

e  Here  he  begins  a  close  transcript  {  The  arguments  against  the  word 

of  the  de  Deer.  §.  30.  supr.  p.  55.  the  Ingenerate  here  brought  together  are 

last  sentence,  however,  of  the  paragraph  also  found  in  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  i.  5. 

being  an  addition.  p.  215.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  31. 23.  Epiph. 

In  generate  not  a  word  of  Scripture.  229 

latter  title,  as  I  have  said,  does  nothing  more  than  refer  to  all  CHAP; 
the  works,  individually  and  collectively,  which  have  come  to    IX* 
be  at  the  will  of  God  through  the  Word;  but  the  title  Father, 
has   its  significance   and   its  bearing1  only  from   the   Son. !  «•*«««' 
And,  whereas  the  Word  surpasses  things  generate,  by  so 
much  and  more  doth  calling  God  Father  surpass  the  calling 
Him  Ingenerate.     For  the  latter  is  unscriptural    and   sus- 
picious, because  it  has  various  senses ;  so  that,  when  a  man 
is  asked  concerning  it,  his  mind  is  carried  about  to  many 
ideas ;   but  the  word  Father  is  simple  and  scriptural,  and 
more  accurate,  and  only  implies  the  Son.    And  "  Ingenerate" 
is    a   word   of  the    Greeks,  who   know  not   the  Son ;    but 
"  Father,"  has  been  acknowledged  and  vouchsafed  by  our 
Lord.     For  He,  knowing  Himself  whose  Son  He  was,  said, 
I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  is  in  Me ;  and  He  that  Johni4, 
hath  seen  Me,  hath  seen  the  Father,  and  /  and  the  Father  lo',  30. 
are  OneK;  but  no  where  is  He  found  to  call  the  Father  Inge- 
nerate.   Moreover,  when  He  teaches  us  to  pray,  He  says  not, 
"When  ye  pray,  say,  O  God  Ingenerate,"  but  rather,  WhenLukeii, 
ye  pray,  say,  Our  Father,  which  art  in  heaven.     And  it  was   ' 
His  will  that  the  Summary2  of  our  faith  should  have  the  same 2  p- 123, 
bearing,  in  bidding  us  be  baptized,  not  into  the  name  ofre 
Ingenerate  and  generate,  nor  into  the  name  of  Creator  and 
creature,  but  into  the  Name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
For  with  such  an  initiation  we  too,  being  of  the  works,  are 
made  sons,  and  using  the  name  of  the  Father,  acknowledge 
from  that  name  the  Word  in  the  Father  Himself  also h.     A 
vain  thing  then  is  their  argument  about  the  term  "  Ingene- 
rate," as  is  now  proved,  and  nothing  more  than  a  fantasy. 

Hser.  76.  p.  941.  Greg.  Nyss.  contr.  26.  ad  Afr.  7.  8.  9.  vid.  also  Epiph. 

Eunom.  vi.  p.  192.  &c.  Cyril.  Dial.  ii.  Hser.  64.  9.   Basil.  Hexaem.  ix.  fin. 

Pseudo-Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  iv. p.  283.  Cyr.    Thes.  xii.  p.  111.   Potam.   Ep. 

e  These   three  texts  are  found  to-  ap.  Dacher.  t.  3.  p.  299.  Hil.  Trin.  vii. 

gether    frequently    in    Athan.     parti-  41.  et  supr.     Vid.  also  Animadv.  in 

cularly  in   Orat.  iii.    where    he    con-  Eustath.   Ep.   ad   Apoll.   Rom.   1796. 

siders  the  doctrines  of  the  "  Image"  p.  58. 

and  the  yrt^i^ea^fif.   vid.  de  Deer.  $.  h  Here  ends  the  extract  from  the  de 

21.  $.  31.  de  Syn.  §.  45.  Orat.  iii.  3.  5.  Decretis.     The   sentence  following  is 

6.  10.  16  fin.  17.  Ep.  j£g.  13.  Sent.  D.  added  as  a  close. 

CHAP.  X. 


How  the  Word  has  free-will,  yet  without  being  alterable.    He  is  unalterable 
because  the  Image  of  the  Father,  proved  from  texts. 

Disc.        1  .   As  to  their  question  whether  the  Word  is  alterable",  it  is 
L     superfluous  to  examine  it  ;  it  is  enough  simply  to  write  down 
*'  35<  what  they  say,  and  so  to  shew  its  daring  irreligion.     How 
they  trifle,  appears  from  the  following  questions  :  —  "  Has  He 
<$-  free  will1,  or  has  He  not?  is  He  good  from  choice  2  according 

t0    fl"ee    Will>    aild    Cai1     HC5   if    HC    Will>    altel*>   k6"1^     °f    ai1    altel'" 

able  nature  ?  or,  as  wood  or  stone,  has  He  not  His  choice 
free  to  be  moved  and  incline  hither  and  thither  ?"  It  is  but 
agreeable  to  their  heresy  thus  to  speak  and  think  ;  for,  when 
once  they  have  framed  to  themselves  a  God  out  of  nothing 
and  a  created  Son,  of  course  they  also  adopt  such  terms  as 
are  suitable  to  a  creature.  However,  when  in  their  contro- 
versies with  Churchmen  they  hear  from  them  of  the  real  and 
only  Word  of  the  Father,  and  yet  venture  thus  to  speak  of 
Him,  does  not  their  doctrine  then  become  the  most  loathsome 
that  can  be  found  ?  Is  it  not  enough  to  distract  a  man  on 
mere  hearing,  though  unable  to  reply,  and  to  make  him  stop 
his  ears,  from  astonishment  at  the  novelty  of  what  he  hears  them 
say,  which  even  to  mention  is  to  blaspheme  ?  For  if  the 
Word  be  alterable  and  changing,  where  will  He  stay,  and 
what  will  be  the  end  of  His  progress  ?  how  shall  the  alter- 
able possibly  be  like  the  Unalterable  ?  How  should  he  who 
has  seen  the  alterable,  be  considered  to  have  seen  the  Un- 
alterable ?  in  which  of  Plis  states  shall  we  be  able  to  behold 
in  Him  the  Father  ?  for  it  is  plain  that  not  at  all  times  shall 

,  i.  e.  not,  changeable,  but  of  whether  the  Word  of  God  is  capable  of 

a  moral  nature  capable  of  improvement,  altering  as  the  devil  altered,  they  scru- 

Arius  maintained  this  in  the  strongest  pled  not  to  say,  «  Yea,  He  is  capable." 

terms  at  starting.     "  On  being  asked  Alex.  ap.  Socr.  i.  6.  p.  11. 

The  Son  unalterable,  because  the  Father's  Image.     231 

we  see  the  Father  in   the    Son,  because  the   Son  is   ever  CHAP. 
altering,  and  is  of  changing  nature.     For  the  Father  is  un- 

alterable  and  unchangeable,  and  is  always  in  the  same  state  and 
the  same  ;  but  if,  as  they  hold,  the  Son  is  alterable,  and  not 
always  the  same,  but  ever  of  a  changing  nature,  how  can  such 
a  one  be  the  Father's  Image,  not  having  the  likeness  of  His 
unalterableness1  ?  how  can  He  be  really  in  the  Father,  if  His  '  supr. 
moral   choice   is   indeterminate?     Nay,  perhaps,   as   being  f^2' 
alterable,  and  advancing  daily.  He  is  not  perfect  yet.     But  p-  212. 
away  with  such   madness  of  the  Arians,  and  let  the  truth 
shine  out,  and  shew  that  they  are  beside  themselves.     For 
must  not  He  be  perfect  who  is  equal  to  God  ?  and  must  not 
He  be  unalterable,  who  is  one  with  the  Father,  and  His  Son 
proper  to  His  substance  ?  and  the  Father's  substance  being 
unalterable,  unalterable  must  be   also  the  proper  Offspring 
from  it.     And  if  they  slanderously  impute  alteration  to  the 
Word,  let  them  learn  how  much  their  own  reason  is  in  peril2;2?.  2, 
for  from  the  fruit  is  the  tree  known.     For  this  is  why  he  who  n° 
hath  seen  the  Son,  hath  seen  the  Father,  and  why  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Son  is  knowledge  of  the  Father. 

2.  Therefore  the  Image  of  the  unalterable  God  must  be§.  36. 
unchangeable;  for  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,, 
and  for  ever.     And  David  in  the  Psalm  says  of  Him,  T/iou9 
Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth., 
and  the  heavens  are  the  work  of  Thine  hands.      They  s#«//Heb.  i, 
perish,  but  Ttiou  remainest  ;  and  they  all  shall  wax  old  as 
doth  a  garment.     And  as  a  vesture  shalt  Tlwufold  them  up, 
and  they  shall  be  changed,  but  Thou  art  the  same,  and  Thy 
years  shall  not  fail.     And  the  Lord  Himself  says  of  Himself 
through  the  Prophet,  See  now  that  I,  even  I  am  He,  and  /Deut.^ 
change  not.   It  may  be  said  indeed  that  what  is  here  expressed  Mii.  V? 
relates  to  the  Father;  yet  it  suits  the  Son  also  to  speak  it,  spe-  <*• 
cially  because,  when  made  man,  He  manifests  His  own  identity 
and  unalterableness  to  such  as  suppose  that  by  reason  of  the 
flesh  He  is  changed  and  become  other  than  He  was.      More 
trustworthy  are  the  sacred  writers,  or  rather  the  Lord,  than 
the  perversity  of  the  irreligious.     For  Scripture,  as  in  the 
above-cited  passage  of  the  Psalter,  signifying  under  the  name 
of  heaven  and  earth,  that  the  nature  of  all  things  generate 
and  created  is  alterable  and  changeable,  yet  excepting  the 

232  The  Son  unalterable  because  from  the  Father's  substance. 

Disc.  Son  from  these,  shews  us  thereby  that  He  is  in  no  wise  a 

L      thing  generate  ;    nay  teaches  that  He  changes  every  thing 

else,  and  is  Himself  not  changed,  in  saying,  TJwu  art  the 

same,  and  Thy  years  shall  not  fail.     A.nd  with  reason  ;  for 

1  p.  223,  things  generate,  being  from  nothing1,  and  not  being  before 

note  g*  their  generation,  because,  in  truth,  they  come  to  be  after  not 
being,  have  a  nature  which  is  changeable  ;  but  the  Son,  being 
from  the  Father,  and  proper  to  His  substance,  is  unchangeable 
and  unalterable  as  the  Father  Himself.  For  it  were  sin  to  say 
that  from  that  substance  which  is  unalterable  was  begotten 
an  alterable  word  and  a  changeable  wisdom.  For  how  is 
He  longer  the  Word,  if  He  be  alterable?  or  can  that  be 
Wisdom  which  is  changeable  ?  unless  perhaps,  as  accident  in 

3  P.  37,  substance3,  so  they  would  have  it,  viz.  as  in  any  particular  sub- 
te  y'  stance,  a  certain  grace  and  habit  of  virtue  exists  accidentally, 
which  is  called  Word  and  Son  and  Wisdom,  and  admits  of 
being  taken  from  it  and  added  to  it.  For  they  have  often 
expressed  this  sentiment,  but  it  is  not  the  faith  of  Christians ; 
as  not  declaring  that  He  is  truly  Word  and  Son  of  God,  or 
that  the  wisdom  intended  is  the  true  Wisdom.  For  what  alters 
and  changes,  and  has  no  stay  in  one  and  the  same  con- 
dition, how  can  that  be  true  ?  whereas  the  Lord  says,  /  am 

John  14,  the  Truth.  If  then  the  Lord  Himself  speaks  thus  concerning 
Himself,  and  declares  His  unalterableness,  and  the  sacred 
writers  have  learned  and  testify  this,  nay  and  our  notions  of 
God  acknowledge  it  as  religious,  whence  did  these  men  of 
irreligion  draw  this  novelty  ?  from  their  heart  as  from  a  seat 

3deSyn.  of  corruption  did  they  vomit  it  forth  z. 

§.16  fin. 
p.  98. 


TEXTS  EXPLAINED  ;    AND  FIRST,  PHIL.  ii.  9,  10. 

Various  texts  which  are  alleged  against  the  Catholic  doctrine;  e.  g.  Phil.  ii. 
9,  10.  Whether  the  words  "  Wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted"  prove 
moral  probation  and  advancement.  Argued  against,  first,  from  the  force  of 
the  word  "  Son ;"  which  is  inconsistent  with  such  an  interpretation.  Next, 
the  passage  examined.  Ecclesiastical  sense  of  "  highly  exalted,"  and 
"  gave,"  and  "wherefore;"  viz.  as  being  spoken  with  reference  to  our 
Lord's  manhood.  Secondary  sense;  viz.  as"  implying  the  Word's  "exalt- 
ation" through  the  resurrection  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Scripture 
speaks  of  His  descent  in  the  Incarnation ;  how  the  phrase  does  not 
derogate  from  the  nature  of  the  Word. 

1.  BUT  since  they  allege  the  divine  oracles  and  force  on  CHAP. 
them  a  misinterpretation,  according  to  their  private  sense*,  it    XI> 
becomes  necessary  to  meet  them  just  so  far  as  to  lay  claim  to  §•  <*7- 
these  passages,  and  to  shew  that  they  bear  an  orthodox  sense, 
and  that  our  opponents  are  in  error.     They  say  then,  that 
the  Apostle  writes,  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  Ph\\.  2, 
Him,  and  given  Him  a  Name  which  is  above  every  name ;   '     ' 
that  at  the  Name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven  and  things  in  earth  and  things  under  the  earth; 
and  David,  Wherefore  God,  even  Thy  God,  hath  anointed  Ps.45,9. 
Thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  Thy  fellows.     Then  they 

a  vid.  supr.  p.  78,  note  n.  "  We  must  their  private  opinion,  but  by  the  writings 

not  make  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  nor  and  authority  of  the  Fathers,  &c."  Hist. 

take  up  a  position  for  tbe  fight,  in  which  ii.  9.  "  Seeing  the  Canon  of  Scripture  is 

victory  is  not,  or  is  doubtful,  or  next  to  perfect,  &c.  what  need  we  join  unto  it 

doubtful.     For  though  this  conflict  of  the  authority  of  the  Church's  under- 

Scripture  with  Scripture  did  not  end  in  standing  and  interpretation  ?    because 

a  drawn  battle,  yet  the  true  order  of  tbe  the  Scripture  being   of  itself  so  deep 

subject  required  that  tbat  sbould  be  laid  and  profound,  all  men  do  not  understand 

down  first,  which  now  becomes  but  a  it  in  one  and  the  same  sense,  but  so 

point  of  debate,  viz.  ivho  have  a  claim  many  men,  so  many  opinions   almost 

to  the  faitb  itself,  whose  are  the  Scrip-  may  be  gathered  out  of  it ;  for  Nova- 

tures."  Tertull.  de  Prsescr.  19.   "  Ruf-  tian   expounds   it  one   way,  Photinus 

finus  says  of  S.  Basil  and  S.  Gregory,  another,    Sabellius,    &c."      Vincent. 

"Putting  asideall  Greek  literature,  tbey  Comm.  2.    Hippolytus  has  a  passage 

are  said  to  have  passed  thirteen  years  to-  very  mucb  to  the  same  purpose,  contr. 

gether  in  studying  tbe  Scriptures  alone,  Noet.  9  fin. 
and  followed  out  their  sense  not  from 

234  If  our  Lord  really  Son,  not  really  "  exalted"  and  rewarded. 

Disc,  urge,  as  something  acute:  "  If, He  was  exalted  and  received 
'      grace,  on  a  wherefore,  and  on  a  wherefore  He  was  anointed, 
He  received  the  reward  of  His  good  choice ;    but  having 
acted  fr°m  choice,  He  is  altogether  of  an  alterable  nature." 
dia,  vid.  This    is    what    Eusebius !    and    Arius   have   dared   to   say, 
HisU.5.  naJ  to   write ;    while   their   partizans   do   not   shrink   from 
2  p.  213,  conversing    about    it    in    full    market-place 2,    not    seeing 
how    mad   an    argument    they   use.      For   if  He  received 
what  He  had  as  a  reward  of  His  good  choice,  and  would 
not  have  had  it,  unless  He  had  needed  it  and   had  His 
work  to  shew  for  it,  then  having  gained  it  from  virtue  and 
:j/iix«»-  promotion3,  with  reason  had  He  "therefore"  been  called  Son 
and  God,  without  being  very  Son.     For  what  is  from  another 
by  nature,  is  a  real  offspring,  as  Isaac  was  to  Abraham,  and 
Joseph  to  Jacob  and   the  Radiance   to  the  Sun  ;    but   the 
so-called  sons  from  virtue  and  grace,  have  but  in  place  of 

4  p.  237,  nature  a  grace  by  acquisition,  and  are  something  else  besides4 

the  gift  itself;  as  the  men  who  have  received  the  Spirit  by 

Is.  1,2.  participation,   concerning   whom    Scripture    saith,    1    have 

begotten  and  exalted  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against 

5  vid.     Me5.      And  of  course,  since  they  were  not  sons  by  nature, 
Nic.      therefore,   when   they   altered,  the  Spirit   was  taken  away 
supr.      ancj   jjjgy   were    disinherited ;    and  again   on   their  repent- 
ance   that   God   who   thus   at    the   beginning   gave    them 
grace,  will  receive   them,   and   give   light,   and   call   them 

§.  38.  sons  again.  But  if  they  say  this  of  the  Saviour  also, 
it  follows  that  He  is  neither  very  God  nor  very  Son,  nor 
like  the  Father,  nor  in  any  wise  has  God  for  a  Father  of 
His  being  according  to  substance,  but  of  the  mere  grace 
given  to  Him,  and  for  a  Creator  of  His  being  according 
to  substance,  after  the  similitude  of  all  others.  And  being  such, 
as  they  maintain,  it  will  be  manifest  further  that  He  had  not 
the  name  "  Son"  from  the  first,  if  so  be  it  was  the  prize  of 
works  done  and  of  that  very  same  advance  which  He  made 
when  He  became  man,  and  took  the  form  of  a  servant ;  but 

Phil.  2,  then,  when,  after  becoming  obedient  unto  death,  He  was, 
as  the  text  says,  highly  exalted,  and  received  that  Name  as 
a  grace,  that  at  the  Name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow. 

2.  What  then  was  before  this,  if  then  He  was  exalted,  and 
then  began  to  be  worshipped,  and  then  was  called  Son,  when 

The  text  brought  by  the  Arians  tells  against  themselves.  235 

He   became   man  ?     For   He   seems   Himself  not  to  have  CHAP. 
promoted1  the  flesh  at  all,  but  rather  to  have  been  Himself        ' 


promoted  through  it,  if,  according  to  their  perverseness,  He  *«$ 
was  then  exalted  and  called  Son,  when  He  became  man.  What 
then  was  before  this  ?  One  must  urge  the  question  on  them  again, 
to  make  it  understood  what  their  irreligious  doctrine  results  inb. 
For  if  the  Lord  be  God,  Son,  Word,  yet  was  not  all  these 
before  He  became  man,  either  He  was  something  else  beside 
these,  and  afterwards  became  partaker  of  them  for  His  virtue's 
sake,  as  we  have  said  ;    or  they  must  adopt  the  alternative, 
(may  it  fall  upon  their  heads  !)  that  He  was  not  before  that 
time,  but  is  wholly  man  by  nature,  and  nothing  more.     But 
this  is  no  sentiment  of  the  Church,  but  of  Samosatene  and  of 
the  present  Jews.     Why  then,  if  they  think  as  Jews,  are  they 
not  circumcised  with  them  too,  instead  of  pretending  Christi- 
anity, while  they  are  its  foes  ?     For  if  He  was  not,  or  was 
indeed,  but  afterwards  was  promoted,  how  were  all  things 
made  by  Him,  or  how  in  Him,  were  He  not  perfect,  did  the 
Father  delight2?     And  He,  on  the  other  hand,  if  now  pro-2vid. 
moted,  how  did  He  before    rejoice  in  the  presence  of  the30 
Father  ?    And,  if  He  received  His  worship  after  dying,  how  is 
Abraham  seen  to  worship  Him  in  the  tent  3,  and  Moses  in  the  3  p.  120, 
bush  ?   and,  as  Daniel  saw,  myriads  of  myriads,  and  thousands  no 
of  thousands  were  ministering  unto  Him  ?     And  if,  as  they 
say,  He  had  His  promotion  now,  how  did  the  Son  Himself 
make  mention  of  that  His  glory  before  and  above  the  world, 
when  He  said,  Glorify  Thou  Me,  O  Father,  with  the  glory  J0hni7, 
which  I  had  with  Ttiee  before  the  world  was.     If,  as  they5' 
say,  He  was  then  exalted,  how  did  He  before  that  bow, 
heavens  and  come  down  ;  and  again,  the  Highest  gave  His 
thunder  ?    Therefore,  if,  even  before  the  world  was  made,  the 

b  The    Arians   perhaps    more   than  is  to  serve  as  an  objection,  was  an  objec- 

other    heretics    were    remarkable    for  tion  also  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the 

bringing  objections  against  the  received  Arians.  They  considered  that  our  Lord 

view,  rather  than  forming  a  consistent  was  above  and  before  all  creatures  from 

theory  of  their  own.     Indeed  the  very  the  first,andtheirCreator;how  then  could 

vigour  and  success  of  their  assault  upon  He  be  exalted  above  all  ?    They  surely, 

the  truth  lay  in  its  being  a  mere  assault,  as  much  as  Catholics,were  obliged  to  ex 

not  a  positive  and  substantive  teaching,  plain  it  of  our  Lord's  manhood.     They 

They  therefore,  even  more  than  others,  could  not  then  use  it  as  a  weapon  against, 

might  fairly  be  urged  on  to  the  conse-  the  Church,  until  they  took  the  ground 

quences  of  their  positions.  Now  the  text  of  Paul  of  Samosata. 
inrjuestion,  as  it  must  be  interpreted  if  it 

236  Our  Lord  not  exalted,  but  a  cause  and  standard  for  us 

Disc.  Son  had  that  glory,  and  was  Lord  of  glory  and  the  Highest 

: and  descended  from  heaven,  and  is  ever  to  be  worshipped,  ii 

follows  that  He  had  no  promotion  from   His  descent,  bui' 
rather  Himself  promoted  the  things  which  needed  promo- 
tion ;  and  if  He  descended  to  effect  their  promotion,  therefore 
He  did  not  receive  in  reward  the  name  of  the  Son  and  God 
but  rather  He  Himself  has  made  us  sons  of  the  Father,  anc ' 
made  men  gods,  by  becoming  Himself  man. 

§.  39.     3.  Therefore  He  was  not  man,  and  then  become  God,but  He 

1  6to*ot-  was  God,  and  then  became  man,  and  that  to  make  us  gods1, 

Since,  if  when  He  became  man,  only  then  He  was  called 

Son  and  God,  but  before  He  became  man,  God  called  the 

ancient  people  sons,  and  made  Moses  a  god  of  Pharaoh,  (and 

Ps.  81,  Scripture  says  of  many,   God  standeth  in  the  congregation 

Sept.  '  of  gods,)  it  is  plain  that  He  is  called  Son  and  God  later  than 

they.     How  then  are  all  things  through  Him,  and  He  before 

Col.  i,   all  ?  or  how  is  lie  first-born  of  the  whole  creation9,  if  He  has 

2  vid.      others  before  Him  who  are  called  sons  and  gods  ?     And  how 

lnfI«Ut  is  i*  that  those  first  partakers c  do  not  partake  of  the  Word  r 
§•  «*• 

This  opinion  is  not  true;  it  is  an  evasion  of  our  present 

Judaizers.  For  how  in  that  case  can  any  at  all  know  God  as 
their  Father  ?  for  adoption  there  cannot  be  apart  from  the  real 

Mat.n,  Son,  who  says,  No  one  knoweth  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and 
he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him.  And  how  can  there 
be  deifying  apart  from  the  Word  and  before  Him  ?  yet,  saith 

Johnio,  He  to  their  brethren  the  Jews,  If  He  called  them  gods,  unto 
whom  the  Word  of  God  came.  And  if  all  that  are  called 
sons  and  gods,  whether  in  earth  or  in  heaven,  were  adopted 
and  deified  through  the  Word,  and  the  Son  Himself  is  the 
Word,  it  is  plain  that  through  Him  are  they  all,  and  He 

3  p.  18,  Himself  before  all,  or  rather  He  Himself  only  is  very  Son3, 

3  °*   and  He  alone  is  very  God  from  the  very  God,  not  receiving 
these   prerogatives  as   a  reward  for  His  virtue,  nor  being 

e  In  this  passage  Athan.  considers  doctrine  very  strongly  in  Orat.  iv.  §.  22. 

that  the  participation  of  the  Word  is  On  the  other  hand,  infr.  47.  he  says 

deification,  as  communion  with  the  Son  expressly  that  Christ  received  the  Spirit 

is  adoption  ;  also  that  the  old  Saints,  in-  in  Baptism  that  He  might  give  it  to  man. 

asmuch^as  they  are  called  "gods"  and  There  is  no  real  contradiction  in  such 

"  sons,"  did  partake  of  the  Divine  Word  statements ;  what  was  given  in  one  way 

and  Son,  or  in  other  words  were  gifted  under  the  Law,  was  given  in  another 

with  the  Spirit.     He  asserts  the  same  and  fuller  under  the  Gospel. 

The  text  itself  entered  into.  287 

something  else  beside1  them,  but  being  all  these  by  nature  and  CHAP. 
iccording  to  substance.     For  He  is  Offspring  of  the  Father's  t  XL 
.ubstance,  so  that  one  cannot  doubt  that  after  the  resemblance  ref]  4.  ' 
)f  the  unalterable  Father,  the  Word  also  is  unalterable. 

4.  Hitherto  we  have  met  their  irrational  conceits  with  the  ^.  40. 
;rue  conceptions d  implied  in  the  Word  "  Son,"  as  the  Lord 
Himself  has  given  us.     But  it  will  be  well  next  to  expound 
the  divine  oracles,  that  the  unalterableness  of  the  Son  and 
His  unchangeable  nature,  which  is  the  Father's2,  as  well  as2yare/*i 
their  perverseness,  may  be   still   more  fully  proved.      The^"" 
Apostle   then,   writing   to   the    Philippians,    says,   Let   ftePhil.  2, 
mind  be  in  you,   which  was  also  in   Christ  Jesus;    who,5""11' 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it   not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God ;  but  made  Himself  of  no  reputation,  and 
>took  upon   Him  the  form    of  a    servant,  and  was  made 
•in   the  likeness  of  men.     And,  being  found  in  fashion  as 
a    man,    He   humbled    Himself,   and    became    obedient  to 
death,  even  the  death   of  the  cross.     Wherefore  God  also 
hath  highly  exalted  Him,  and  given  Him  a  Name  which  is 
above  every  name ;  that  at  the  Name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 
Can  any  thing  be  plainer  and  more  express  than  this  ?     He 
was  not  from  a  lower  state  promoted  ;  but  rather,  existing  as 
God,  He  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  in  taking  it,  did  not 
promote  but  humbled  Himself.     Where  then  is  there  here 
any  reward  of  virtue,  or  what  advancement  and  promotion 
in  such  humiliation  ?  For  if,  being  God,  He  became  man,  and 
descending  from  011  high  He  is  still  said  to  be  exalted,  where 
is   He  exalted,  being  God?    this  withal  being   plain,  that, 
since  God  is  highest  of  all,  His  Word  must  necessarily  be 
highest  also.    Where  then  could  He  be  exalted  higher,  who 
is  in  the  Father  and  like  the  Father  in  all  things3  ? 

5.  Therefore  He  is  beyond  the  need  of  any  addition ;  nor  is  \ 
such  as  the  Arians  think  Him.     For  though  the  Word  did 
descend  in  order  to  be  exalted,  and  so  it  is  written,  yet  p.  210, 
what   need   was   there   that   He   should    humble    Himself, ref- 3- 

U.  contr-  Eunom, 
voiat  *vt)irn*KfAtv.  cf.  ««#<  tvrbttet,  rctf*-     i.  6.  init. 

238  Jlie  true  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  text. 

Disc,  as  if  to  seek  that  which  He  had  already  ?    And  what  grace 

*•      did  He  receive  who  is  the  Giver  of  grace  l  ?  or  how  did  He 

note3q.'  receive  that  Name  for  worship,  who  is  always  worshipped  by 

His  Name?     Nay,  certainly  before  He  became   man,  the 

Ps.54,i.  sacred  writers  invoke  Him,  Save  me,  O  God,  for  Tliy  Name's 

Ps.20,7.  sake ;  and  again,  Some  put  their  trust  in  chariots,  and  some 

in  horses,  but  we  will  remember  the  Name  of  the  Lord  our 

God.    And  while  He  was  worshipped  by  the  Patriarchs,  con- 

Heb.  i,  cerning  the  Angels  it  is  written,  Let  all  the  Angels  of  God 

/    ^j   worship  Him.     And  if,  as  David  says  in  the  71st  Psalm,  His 

Ps.  71,  Name  remaineth  before  the  sun ,  and  before  the  moon  from 

5/2^et   one  generation  to  another,  how  did  He  receive  what  He  had 

always,  even  before  He  now  received  it  ?  or  how  is  He  exalted, 

being  before  His  exaltation,  the  Most  High  ?    or  how  did  He 

receive  the  right  of  being  worshipped,  who  before  He  now 

received  it,  was  ever  worshipped  ? 

John  i,  6.  It  is  not  a  dark  saying  bat  a  divine  mystery  e.  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God  ;  but  for  our  sakes  afterwards  the  Word 
was  made  flesh.  And  the  term  in  question,  highly  exalted, 
does  not  signify  that  the  substance  of  the  Word  was  exalted, 
Phil.  2,  for  He  was  ever  and  is  equal  to  God,  but  the  exaltation  is  of 
the  manhood.  Accordingly  this  is  not  said  before  the  Word 
became  flesh ;  that  it  might  be  plain  that  humbled  and  exalted 
are  spoken  of  His  human  nature ;  for  where  there  is  humble 
estate,  there  too  maybe  exaltation;  and  if  because  of  His  taking 
flesh  hum.bled  is  written,  it  is  clear  that  highly  exalted  is  also 
2  ocivfya-  saidbecause  of  it.  For  of  this  was  man's2  nature  in  want,  because 
of  the  humble  estate  of  the  flesh  and  of  death.  Since  then 
the  Word,  being  the  Image  of  the  Father  and  immortal,  took 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  as  man  underwent  for  us  death  in 
His  flesh,  that  thereby  He  might  offer  Himself  for  us  through 
death  to  the  Father;  therefore  also,  as  man,  He  is  said  because 
of  us  and  for  us  to  be  highly  exalted,  that  as  by  His  death 

e  Scripture  is  full  of  mysteries,  but  manner  S.Ambrose  says,  Mare  estscrip- 
they  are  mysteries  of  fact,  not  of  words,  tura  divina,  habens  in  se  sensus  pro- 
Its  dark  sayings  or  senigmata  are  such,  fundos,  et  altitudinem  propheticorum 
because  in  the  nature  of  things  they  cenigmatum,  &c.  Ep.  ii.  3.  What  is 
cannot  be  expressed  clearly.  Hence  commonly  called  "  explaining  away" 
contrariwise,  Orat.  ii.  §.  77  fin.  he  Scripture,  is  this  transference  of  the 
calls  Prov.  8,  22.  an  enigma,  with  an  obscurity  from  the  subject  to  the  words 
allusion  to  Prov.  1,  6.  Sept.  In  like  used. 

He  is  exalted,  that  is,  in  respect  of  His  manhood.     239 

ve  all  died  in  Christ,  so   again  in  the  Christ  Himself  we   Disc, 
night  be  highly  exalted,  being  raised   from   the  dead,  and  — - — 
iscending  into  heaven,  whither  the  forerunner  is  for  us  Heb.  6, 
mtered,  not  into  the  figures  of  the  true,  but  into  heaven^!    ' 
'tself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us.     But  if 
low  for  us  the  Christ  is  entered  into  heaven  itself,  though 
He  was  even  before  and  always  Lord  and  Framer  of  the 
•leavens,  for  us  therefore  is  that  present  exaltation  also  written. 
And  as  He  Himself,  who   sanctifies  all,  says  also  that  He 
sanctifies  Himself  to  the  Father  for  our  sakes,  not  that  the 
Word  may  become  holy,  but  that  He  Himself  may  in  Him- 
self sanctify  all   of  us,  in  like   manner  we  must  take  the 
.present  phrase,  He  highly  exalted  Him,  not  that  He  Himself 
should  be  exalted,  for  He  is  the  highest,  but  that  He  may 
'become  righteousness  for  usf;    and  we  may  be  exalted  in 
Him,  and  that  we  may  enter  the  gates  of  heaven,  which  He 
has  also  opened  for  us,  the  forerunners  saying,  Lift  up  your  Ps.24,7. 
heads,  O  ye  gates,  and  be  ye  lift  up,  ye  everlasting  doors,  and 
'the  King  of  Glory  shall  come  in.  For  here  also  not  on  Him  were 
shut  the  gates,  who  is  Lord  and  Maker  of  all,  but  because 
of  us  is  this  too  written,  to  whom  the   door  of  paradise  was 
shut.     And  therefore  in  a  human  relation,  because  of  the 
iflesh  which  He  bore,  it  is  said  of  Him,  Lift  up,  O  ye  gates, 
and  shall  come  in,  as  if  a  man  wrere  entering ;  but  in  a  divine 
relation  on  the  other  hand  it  is  said  of  Him,  since  the  Word 
was  God,  that  He  is  the  Lord  and  the  King  of  glory.     Such 
our  exaltation  the  Spirit  foreannounced  in  the  eighty-ninth 
Psalm,  saying,  And  in  Thy  righteousness  shall  they  be  exalted,  Ps.  88^ 
for  Tlwu  art  the  glory  of  their  strength.     And  if  the  Son  be  fg9'^; 
Righteousness,  then  He  is  not  exalted  as  being  Himself  in 
need,  but  it  is  we  who  are  exalted  in  that  Righteousness,  vid. 

,  .   ,    .     TT  lCor.1, 

which  is  He.  so. 

7.  And  so  too  the  words  gave  Him,  are  not  written  for  the  §.  42. 
Word  Himself;   for  even  before  He  became  man,  He  was 

f  When  Scripture  says  that  our  Lord  God  ;  it  is  unmeaning,  and  therefore  is 

was  exalted,  it  means  in  that  sense  in  not  applied  to  Him  in  the  text  in  ques- 

which  He  could  be  exalted ;  just  as,  in  tion.     Thus,  e.  g.  S.  Ambrose  :  "  Ubi 

saying  that  a  man  walks  or  eats,  we  humiliabus,  ibi  obediens.     Ex  eo  enim 

speak  of  him  not  as  a  spirit,  but  as  in  nascitur  obedientia,  ex  quo  humilitas, 

that  system  of  things  to  which  the  idea  ct  in  eo   desinit,    &c."    ap.   Dav.   alt. 

of  walking  and  eating  belong.    Exalta-  n.  39. 
tion  is  not  a  word  which  can  belong  to 

240  Man's  nature  is  exalted  in  the  Word  and  worshipped. 

Disc,  worshipped,  as  we  have  said,  by  the  Angels  and  the  whole 
creation  in  what  is  proper l  to  the  Father ;  but  because  of  us 
and  for  us  this  too  is  written  of  Him.  For  as  Christ  died 
and  was  exalted  as  man,  so,  as  man,  is  He  said  to  take  what, 
as  God,  He  ever  had,  that  even  this  so  high  a  grant  of  grace 
might  reach  to  us.  For  the  Word  was  not  impaired  in  re- 
ceiving a  body,  that  He  should  seek  to  receive  a  grace,  but 
2  Wi«-  rather  He  deified2  that  which  He  put  on,  nay,  gave  it  graciously 
"""  to  the  race  of  man.  For  as  He  was  ever  worshipped  as  being 
the  Word  and  existing  in  the  form  of  God,  so  being  what  He 
ever  was,  though  become  man  and  called  Jesus,  He  still  has,  as 
before,  the  whole  creation  under  foot,  and  bending  their 
knees  to  Him  in  this  Name,  and  confessing  that  the  Word's 
becoming  flesh,  and  undergoing  death  in  flesh,  hath  not 
happened  against  the  glory  of  His  Godhead,  but  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father.  For  it  is  the  Father's  glory  that  man, 
made  and  then  lost,  should  be  found  again ;  and,  when  the 
prey  of  death,  that  He  should  be  made  alive,  and  should 
become  God's  temple.  For  whereas  the  powers  in  heaven, 
both  Angels  and  Archangels,  were  ever  worshipping  the 
Lord,  as  they  are  now  worshipping  Him  in  the  Name  of 
Jesus,  this  is  our  grace  and  high  exaltation,  that  even  when 
He  became  man,  the  Son  of  God  is  worshipped,  and  the 
heavenly  powers  are  not  startled  at  seeing  all  of  us,  who  are 
5infr.§.  of  one  body  with  Him3,  introduced  into  their  realms.  And 
241. p*  this  had  not  been,  unless  He  who  existed  in  the  form  of  God 
had  taken  on  Him  a  servant's  form,  and  had  humbled  Him- 
self, permitting  His  body  to  reach  unto  death. 

§.  43.  8.  Behold  then  what  men  considered  the  foolishness  of  God 
because  of  the  Cross,  has  become  of  all  things  most  honoured. 
For  our  resurrection  is  stored  up  in  it ;  and  110  longer 
Israel  alone,  but  henceforth  all  the  nations,  as  the  Prophet 
foretold,  leave  their  idols  and  acknowledge  the  true  God,  the 
Father  of  the  Christ.  And  the  delusion  of  demons  is  come 
to  nought,  and  He  only  who  is  really  God  is  worshipped 
in  the  Name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  in  that  the 
Lord,  even  when  come  in  human  body  and  called  Jesus, 
was  worshipped  and  believed  to  be  God's  Son,  and  that 
v&.Ynfr'.  though  Him  the  Father  was  known,  it  is  plain,  as  has 
§.4*4,47, been  said,  that  not  the  Word,  considered  as  the  Word4, 


The  Person  of  the  WordhumUed  and  marts  nature  exalted.  241 

received  this  so  great  grace,  but  we.     For  because  of  our  CHAP. 
relationship  to  His  Body  we  too  have  become  God's  temple,     XL 
and  in  consequence  are  made  God's  sons,  so  that  even  in  us 
the  Lord  is  now  worshipped,  and  beholders  report,  as  the 
Apostle  says,  that  God  is  in  them  of  a  truth g.     As  also  John 
saith  in  the  Gospel,  As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  John  i, 
He  power  to  become  children  of  God ;  and  in  his  Epistle  he  12 
writes,   By   this   we   know  that  He  abideth   in  us  by  His* Johns, 
Spirit  which  He  hath  given  us.     And  this  too  is  an  evidence 
of  His   goodness   towards  us  that,  while  we  were   exalted 
because  that  the  Highest  Lord  is  in  us,  and  on  our  behalf 
grace  was  given  to  Him,  because  that  the  Lord  who  supplies 
the  grace  has  become  a  man  like  us,  He  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Saviour,  humbled  Himself  in  taking  our  body  of  humiliation, 
and  took  a  servant's  form,  putting  on  that  flesh  which  was 
enslaved  to  sinh.    And  He  indeed  gained  nothing  from  us  for 


8  Strat  Iv  vpTv  o  6t»(.  1  Cor.  14,  25. 
Athan.  interprets  «»  in  not  among ;  as 
also  in  1  John  3, 24. just  afterwards.  Vid. 
i»  \ftti.  Gal.  1,  24.  Ivr^t  far,.  Luke  17, 
21.  ifxwurtr  in  fifuf.  John  1, 14.  on  which 
text  Hooker  says,  "  It  pleased  not  the 
Word  or  Wisdom  of  God  to  take  to  itself 
some  one  person  among  men,  for  then 
should  that  one  have  been  advanced 
which  was  assumed  and  no  more,  but 
Wisdom,  to  the  end  she  might  save 
many,  built  her  house  of  that  Nature 
which  is  common  unto  all ;  she  made 
not  this  or  that  man  her  habitation,  but 
dwelt  in  us."  Eccl.  Pol.  v.  52.  §.  3. 
S.  Basil  in  his  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  a  somewhat  similar  pas- 
sage to  the  text,  "  Man  in  common  is 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  and  gl  ory 
and  honour  and  peace  is  reserved  in  the 
promises  for  every  one  who  doeth  good. 
And  there  is  a  certain  glory  of  Israel 
peculiar,  and  the  Psalmist  speaks  of  a 
glory  of  his  own,  l  Awake  up  my  glory ;' 
and  there  is  a  glory  of  the  sun,  and 
according  to  the  Apostle  even  a  minis- 
tration of  condemnation  with  glory.  So 
many  then  being  glorified,  choose  you 
that  the  Spirit  alone  of  all  should  be 
without  glory  ?"  de  Sp.  S.  c.  24. 

h  It  was  usual  to  say  against  the 
Apollinarians,  that,  unless  our  Lord 
took  on  Him  our  nature,  as  it  is,  He 
had  not  purified  and  changed  it,  as  it 
is,  but  another  nature ;  "  The  Lord 
came  not  to  save  Adam  as  free  from 

sin,  that  He  should  become  like  unto 
him ;  but  as,  in  the  net  of  sin  and  now 
fallen,  that  God's  mercy  might  raise  him 
up  with  Christ."  Leont.contr.Nestor.&c. 
ii.  p.  996.  Accordingly  Athan.  says  else- 
where, "  Had  not  sinlessness  appeared  in 
the  nature  which  had  sinned,  how  was  sin 
condemned  in  the  flesh  ?  in  Apoll.  ii.  6. 
"  It  was  necessary  for  our  salvation," 
says  S.  Cyril,  "  that  the  Word  of  God 
should  become  man,  that  human  flesh 
subject  to  corruption  and  sick  with  the 
lust  of  pleasures.  He  might  make 
His  own  ;  and,  whereas  He  is  life  and 
lifegiving,  He  might  destroy  the  cor- 
ruption, &c For  by  this  means, 

might  sin  in  our  flesh  become  dead." 
Ep.  ad  Success,  i.  p.  138.  And  S.  Leo, 
"  Non  alterius  naturae  erat  ejus  caro 
quam  nostra,  nee  alio  illi  quam  ceeteris 
hominibus  anima  est  inspirata  princi- 
pio,  quae  excelleret,  non  diversitate 
generis,  sed  sublimitate  virtutis."  Ep. 
35  fin.  vid.  also  Ep.  28.  3.  Ep.  31.  2. 
Ep.  165.  9.  Serm.  22.  2.  and  25.  5. 
It  may  be  asked  whether  this  doctrine 
does  not  interfere  with  that  of  the  imma- 
culate conception ;  but  that  miracle  was 
wrought  in  order  that  our  Lord  might 
not  be  born  in  original  sin,  and  does  not 
affect,  or  rather  includes,  His  taking 
flesh  of  the  substance  of  the  Virgin,  i.  e. 
of  a  fallen  nature.  If  indeed  sin  were 
of  the  substance  of  our  fallen  nature, 
as  some  heretics  have  said,  then  He 
could  not  have  taken  our  nature  without 

242  God  the  Word  exalted  in  such  sense  as  He  teas  humbled; 

Disc.  His  own  promotion  ! :  for  the  Word  of  God  is  without  want 
and   full ;    but   rather  we   were    promoted   from    Him  ;    for 
-He  is  the  Light,  which  lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh 
te/nal    into  the  world. 

advance  .  , 

9.  And  in  vain  do  the  Allans  lay  stress  upon  the  conjunc- 
tion wherefore,  because  Paul  has  said,  Wherefore  hath  God 
highly  exalted  Him.     For  in  saying  this  he  did  not  imply 
^-T^KO-  any  prize  of  virtue,  nor  the  promotion  from  advance2,  but 
terna?"  the  cause  why  the  exaltation  was  bestowed  upon  us.    And  what 
advance,  js  thjs  but  that  He  who  existed  in  form  of  God,  the  Son 
52.      '  of  a  divine3  Father,  humbled  Himself  and  became  a  servant 
3 tfytwf instead  of  us  and  in  our  behalf?     For  if  the  Lord  had  not 
become  man,  we  had  not  been  redeemed  from  sins:   not 
raised  from  the  dead,  but  remaining  dead  under  the  earth ; 
not   exalted   into   heaven,  but  lying  in    Hades.      Because 
of  us  then  and  in  our  behalf  are  the  words,  highly  exalted 
and  given. 

§.  44.  10.  This  then  I  consider  the  sense  of  this  passage,  and  that, 
4  i**x»»-  a  very  ecclesiastical  sense 4.  However,  there  is  another 
I^T^id  way  m  which  one  might  remark  upon  it,  giving  the  same  sense 
Scrap.  in  a  parallel  way ;  viz.  that,  though  it  does  not  speak  of  the 
contr.'  exaltation  of  the  Word  Himself,  so  far  as  He  is  Word5,  (for 
7*33'  6*  ^e  *s>  as  was  Just  now  sa^'  most  n*gh  and  like  His  Father,) 
50rat  ii  ^et  ^y  reason  °f  His  incarnation  it  alludes  to  His  resurrection 
$.8.  from  the  dead.  For  after  saying,  He  hath  humbled  Him- 
self even  unto  death,  He  immediately  added,  Wherefore  He 

partaking  our  sinfulness  ;  but  if  sin  be,  Anton.  20.)  "  not  as  if,"  he  says,  "  the 
as  it  is,  a  fault  of  the  will,  then  the  devil  wrought  in  man  a  nature,  (God 
Divine  Power  of  the  "Word  could  forbid  !)  for  of  a  nature  the  devil  cannot 
sanctify  the  human  will,  and  keep  it  be  maker  (fcyMMg^r)  as  is  the  impiety 
from  swerving  in  the  direction  of  evil,  of  the  Manichees,  but  he  wrought  a 
Hence  S.  Austin  says,  "  We  say  not  bias  of  nature  by  transgression,  and  «  so 
that  Christ  by  the  felicity  of  a  flesh  death  reigned  over  all  men.'  Where- 
separated  from  sense  could  not  feel  the  fore,  saith  He,  <  the  Son  of  God  came 
desire  of  sin,  but  that  by  perfection  of  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil ;' 
virtue,  and  by  a  flesh  not  begotten  what  works  ?  that  nature,  which  God 
through  concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  He  made  sinless,  and  the  devil  biassed  to 
had  not  the  desire  of  sin."  Op.  Imperf.  the  transgression  of  God's  command 
iv.  48.  On  the  other  hand,  S.  Athana-  and  the  finding  out  of  sin  which  is  death, 
sius  expressly  call sitManichean  doctrine  did  God  the  Word  raise  again,  so  as  to 
to  consider,  T«V  tfvfiv  of  the  flesh  etfta.^-  be  secure  from  the  devil's  bias  and  the 
Way,  xa.}  el  T»>V  v^iv.  contr.  Apoll.  i.  12  findingoutof  sin.  And  therefore  the  Lord 
fin.  or  <pt«r/*»iv  iTv«<  rnv  a^a^r/av.  ibid.  i.  said, '  The  prince  of  this  world  cometh 
14  fin.  His  argument  in  the  next  ch.  is  and  findeth  nothing  in  Me.'  "  vid.  also 
on  the  ground  that  all  natures  are  from  §.  19.  Ibid.  ii.  6.  he  speaks  of  the  devil 
God,  but  God  made  man  upright  nor  having  introduced  the  law  of  sin."  vid. 
is  the  author  of  evil  ;  (vid.  also  Vit.  also  §.  9. 

viz.  in  the  body,  on  the  Resurrection,  because  He  was  God.  243 

hath  highly  exalted  Him  ;  wishing  to  shew,  that,  although  CHAP. 
as  man  He  is  said  to  have  died,  yet,  as  being  Life,  He  was    XI' 
exalted  on  the  resurrection;  for   He  who  descended,  is  MeEph.  4, 
same  also  who  rose  again.     He  descended  in  body,  and  He^a,TaV 
rose  again  because  He  was  God  Himself  in  the  body.    And  this  but  &?*• 
again  is  the  reason  why  according  to  this  meaning  Fie  brought  /2"jrec't 
in  the  conjunction  Wherefore;  not  as  a  reward  of  virtue  nor  of 
advancement,  but  to  signify  the  cause  why  the  resurrection  took 
place;  and  why,  while  all  other  men  from  Adam  down  to  this 
time  have  died  and  remained  dead,  He  only  rose  in  integrity 
from  the  dead.  The  cause  is  this,  which  He  Himself  has  already 
taught  us,  that,  being  God,  He  has  become  man.     For  all 
other  men,  being  merely  born  of  Adam,  died,  and  death  reigned 
over  them;  but  He,  the  Second  Man,  is  from  heaven,  for  the  John  i, 
Word  was  made  flesh,  and  this  Man  is  said  to  Jbe  from 14< 
heaven  and  heavenly1,  because  the  Word  descended  from1  in 
heaven ;    wherefore  He   was   not   held   under   death. 
though  He  humbled  Himself,  suffering  His  own  Body  to  reach 
unto  death,  in  that  it  was  capable2  of  death1,  yet  it  was  highly 
exalted  from  earth,  because  He  was  God's  Son  in  a  body. 
Accordingly  what  is  here  said,  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly 
exalted  Him,  answers  to  St.  Peter's  words  in  the  Acts,  Whom  Acts  2, 
God  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  bonds  of  death,  because  it 24* 
was  not  possible  that  He  should  be  holden  of  it.     For  as 
Paul  has  written,  "  Since  being  in  form  of  God  He  became 
man,  and  humbled  Himself  unto  death,  therefore  God  also 
hath   highly  exalted    Him,"  so    also    Peter    says,  "  Since, 
being  God,  He  became  man,  and  signs  and  wonders  proved 

1  It  was  a  point  in  controversy  with  placed  Himself  under  those  laws,  and 
the  extreme  Monophysites,  that  is,  the  died  naturally,  vid.  Athan.  contr.  Apoll. 
Eutychians,  whether  our  Lord's  body  i.  17.  and  that  after  the  resurrection 
Was  naturally  subject  to  death,  the  Ca-  His  body  became  incorruptible,  not  ae- 
tholics  maintaining  the  affirmative,  as  cording  to  nature,  but  by  grace,  vid. 
Athanasius  here.  Eutyches  asserted  Leont.  de  Sect.  x.  p.  530.  Anast. 
that  our  Lord  had  not  a  human  nature,  Hodeg.  c.  23.  To  express  their  doc- 
by  which  he  meant  among  other  things  trine  of  the  vvrt^Qvif  of  our  Lord's  man- 
that  His  manhood  was  not  subject  to  hood  the  Eutychians  made  use  of  the 
the  laws  of  a  body,  but  so  far  as  He  Catholic  expression  "  ut  voluit."  vid. 
submitted  to  them,  did  so  by  an  act  of  Athan.  1.  c.  Eutyches  ap.  Leon, 
will  in  each  particular  case  ;  and  this,  Ep.  21.  "  quomodo  voluit  et  scit," 
lest  it  should  seem  that  He  was  moved  by  twice,  vid.  also  Eranist.  i.  p.  11.  ii.  p. 
the  Tfu6n  against  His  will  axoufitas ;  and  105.  Leont.  contr.  Nest.  i.  p.  967. 
consequently  that  His  manhood  was  not  Pseudo-Athan.  Serm.  adv.  Div.  Heer, 
subject  to  death.  But  the  Catholics  §.  8.  (t.  2.  p.  570.) 
maintained  that  He.  had  voluntarily 

244  What  belongs  to  the  manhood,  belongs  to  the  Per  son  of  the  Word 

Disc.  Him  to  beholders  to  be  God,  therefore  it  was  not  possible 

I: that  He  should  be  holden  of  death."     To  man  it  was  not 

possible  to  prosper  in  this  matter ;  for  death  belongs  to  man ; 
wherefore,  the  Word,  being  God,  became  flesh,  that,  being 
put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  He  might  quicken  all  men  by  His 
own  power. 

§.  45.  1 1.  But  since  He  Himself  is  said  to  be  exalted,  and  God  gave 
\xAr-  Him,  and  the  heretics  think  this  a  defect1  or  affection  in  the 
substance*  of  the  Word,  it  becomes  necessary  to  explain  how 
these  words  are  used.  He  is  said  to  be  exalted  from  the 
lower  parts  of  the  earth,  because,  on  the  other  hand,  death  is 
ascribed  to  Him.  Both  events  are  reckoned  His,  since  it 
was  His  Body  *,  and  none  other's,  that  was  exalted  from  the 
dead  and  taken  up  into  heaven.  And  again,  the  Body  being 
His,  and  the  Word  not  being  external  to  it,  it  is  natural  that 
when  the  Body  was  exalted,  He,  as  man,  should,  because  of 
the  body,  be  spoken  of  as  exalted.  If  then  He  did  not  become 
man,  let  this  not  be  said  of  Him ;  but  if  the  Word  became 
flesh,  of  necessity  the  resurrection  and  exaltation,  as  in  the 
case  of  a  man,  must  be  ascribed  to  Him,  that  the  death 
which  is  ascribed  to  Him  may  be  a  redemption  of  the  sins  of 

k  At  first  sight  it  would  seem  as  if  not  to  confess  the  Word's  body,  (or 
St.  Athanasiushereused  «&?/«  substance  the  body  of  God  in  the  Person  of  the 
for  subsistence,  or  person ;  but  this  is  Word,)  the  Word's  death,  (as  Athan. 
not  true  except  with  an  explanation,  in  the  text,)  the  Word's  exaltation,  and 
Its  direct  meaning  is  here,  as  usual,  sub-  the  Word's,  or  God's  Mother,  who  was 
stance,  though  indirectly  to  come  to  im-  in  consequence  called  hovow,  which 
ply  subsistence.  He  is  speaking  of  was  the  expression  on  which  the  con- 
that  Divine  Essence  which,  though  also  troversy  mainly  turned.  "The  God- 
the  Almighty  Father's,  is  as  simply  head, "says  Athan. elsewhere,  li  i dwelt 
and  entirely  the  Word's  as  if  it  were  in  the  flesh  bodily;  which  is  all  one 
only  His.  Nay,  even  when  the  Sub-  with  saying,  that,  being  God,  He  had 
stance  of  the  Father  is  spoken  of  in  a  a  proper  body,  73/ov,  and  using  this  as  an 
sort  of  contrast  to  that  of  the  Son,  as  in  instrument,  o^y«v*»,  He  became  man, 
the  phrase  «utr1et  i%  eitfiut,  harsh  as  such  for  our  sakes ;  and  because  of  this 
expressions  are,  it  is  not  accurate  to  things  proper  to  the  flesh  are  said  to  be 
say  that  evria  is  used  for  subsistence  or  His,  since  He  was  in  it,  as  hunger, 
person,  or  that  two  tufitu  are  spoken  of.  thirst,  suffering,  fatigue,  and  the  like, 
(vid.supr.  p.  155,  note  f.)  except,  that  is,  of  which  the  flesh  is  capable,  ^txnxtj  ; 
by  Arians,  as  Eusebius,  supr.  p.  63,  while  the  works  proper  to  the  Word 
note  g.-  Just  below  we  find  Qvng  r»v  Himself,  as  raising  the  dead,  and  restor- 
Xayat;,  §.  51  init.  •  ing  sight  to  the  blind,  and  curing  the 

1  This  was  the  question  which  came  issue  of  blood,  He  did  Himself  through 

into  discussion  in  the  Nestorian  contro-  His  body,  &c.' "  Orat.  iii.  31.  vid.  the 

•versy,  when,  as  it  was  then  expressed,  whole  passage,  which  is  as  precise  as  if 

all  that  took  place  in  respect  to  the  it  had  been  written  after  the  Nesto- 

Eternal  Word  as  man,  belonged  to  His  rian  and  Eutychian  controversies, 

Person,  and  therefore  might  be  predi-  though  without  the  technical  words 

cated  of  Him ;  so  that  it  was  heretical  then  adopted. 

The  Word  gives  as  God  what  He  receives  as  man.    245 

men  and  an  abolition  of  death,  and  that  the  resurrection  and  CHAP. 

exaltation  may  for  His  sake  remain  secure  for  us.     In  both 

respects    he    hath    said   of  Him,  God  hath  highly  exalted 
Him,  and  God  hath  given  to  Him  ;  that  herein  moreover  he 
may   shew   that   it   is   not   the    Father   that   hath   become 
flesh,  but  it  is  His  Word,  who  has  become  man,  and  has 
received  after  the  manner  of  men  from  the  Father,  and  is 
exalted  by  Him,  as  has  been  said.    And  it  is  plain,  nor  would 
any  one  dispute  it,  that  what  the   Father  gives,  He   gives 
through   the   Son.     And  it  is  marvellous  and  overwhelming 
verily,  that  the  grace  which  the  Son  gives  from  the  Father, 
that  the  Son  Himself  is  said  to  receive ;  and  the  exaltation, 
which  the  Son  effects  from  the  Father,  with  that,  the  Son  is 
Himself  exalted.    For  He  who  is  the  Son  of  God,  He  Himself 
became  the  Son  of  Man ;  and,  as  Word,  He  gives  from  the 
Father,  for  all  things  which  the  Father  does  and  gives,  He 
does  and  supplies  through  Him;    and  as  the  Son  of  Man, 
He  Himself  is  said  after  the  manner  of  men  to  receive  what  | 
proceeds  from  Him,  because  His  Body  is  none  other  than  His,  ^uirn 
and  is  a  natural  recipient  of  grace,  as  has  been  said.     For  He  2  T^  ^^ 
received  it  as  far  as  man's  nature1  was  exalted ;  which  exalt-  f 
atioii  was  its  being  deified.      But  such   an  exaltation  th 
Word  Himself  always  had  according  to  the  Father's  God-  JJJJ;  P^ 
head2  and  perfection,  which  was  His.  r. 


TEXTS  EXPLAINED  ;    SECONDLY,  PSALM  xlv.  7,  8. 

Whether  the  words  "  therefore,"  "  anointed,"  &c.  imply  that  the  Word  has 
been  rewarded.  Argued  against  first  from  the  word  "fellows"  or  "  par- 
takers." He  is  anointed  with  the  Spirit  in  His  manhood  to  sanctify 
human  nature.  Therefore  the  Spirit  descended  on  Him  in  Jordan,  when 
in  the  flesh.  And  He  is  said  to  sanctify  Himself  for  us,  and  give  us  the 
glory  He  has  received.  The  word  "  wherefore"  implies  His  divinity. 
"  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,"  &c.  do  not  imply  trial  or  choice. 

Vise.       1.  SUCH  an  explanation  of  the  Apostle's  words,  confutes  the 

-r— • '- —  irreligious  men ;  and  what  the  Psalmist  says  admits  also  the 
'  same  orthodox  sense,  which  they  misinterpret,  but  which  in 
the  Psalmist  is  manifestly  religious.  He  says  then,  Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever ;  a  sceptre  of  righteous- 
ness is  the  sceptre  of  Thy  Kingdom.  Thou  hast  loved 
righteousness,  and  hated  iniquity,  therefore  God,  even  Thy 
God,  hath  anointed  Thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  Thy 
fellows.  Behold,  O  ye  Arians,  and  acknowledge  even  hence 

1  furt-  the  truth.  The  Psalmist  speaks  of  all  us  as  fellows  or  partakers 1 
of  the  Lord ;  but  were  He  one  of  things  which  come  out  of 
nothing  and  of  things  generate,  He  Himself  had  been  one 
of  those  who  partake.  But,  since  He  hymned  Him  as  the 
eternal  God,  saying,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and 
ever,  and  has  declared  that  all  other  things  partake  of  Him, 
what  conclusion  must  we  draw,  but  that  He  is  distinct  from 
generated  things,  and  He  only  the  Father's  veritable  Word, 

note^'  Ractiance>  and  Wisdom,  which  all  things  generate  partake2, 
being  sanctified  by  Him  in  the  Spirit11?  And  therefore  He  is 
here  "  anointed,"  not  that  He  may  become  God,  for  He  was 

*  It  is  here  said  that  all  things  gene-  Principle   of  reason,    as    by    Origen, 

rate  partake  tbe  Son  and  are  sanctified  vid.  ap.  Athan.  Serap.  iv.  9.  vid.  him- 

by  the  Spirit.     How  a  •yiwmris  or  adop-  self,  de  Incarn.  11.     These  offices  of 

tion  through  the  Son  is  necessary  for  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  contrasted 

every  creature  in  order  to  its  consist-  by  S.  Basil,  in  his  de  Sp.  S.  rov  -rgo- 

ence,  life,  or  preservation, has  been  ex-  ffreirrovret  Aayav,  rot^nftiovgyouvret  Xoyov, 

plained,  supr.  p.  32,  note  q.    Sometimes  TO  fripivv  •gnu^.a.^  &c,  c,  16,  n.  38, 
the  Son  was  considered  as  the  special 

Our  Lord  was  anointed,  as  He  was  exalted,  for  us.     247 

so  even  before  ;   nor  that  He  may  become  King,  for  He  had  CHAP. 

the   Kingdom   eternally,  existing   as  God's   Image,  as   the 1- 

sacred  Oracle  shews ;    but  in  our  behalf  is  this  written,  as 
before.     For  the  Israelitish  kings,  upon  their  being  anointed, 
then  became  kings,  not  being  so  before,  as  David,  as  Ezekias, 
as  Josias,  and  the  rest;   but  the  Saviour  on  the  contrary, 
being  God,  and  ever  ruling  in  the  Father's  Kingdom,  and 
being  Himself  the  Dispenser  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  nevertheless 
is  here  said  to  be  anointed,  that,  as  before,  being  said  as 
man  to  be  anointed  with  the  Spirit,  He  might  provide  for  us 
men,  not  only  exaltation  and  resurrection,  but  the  indwelling 
and  intimacy1  of  the  Spirit.     And  signifying  this  the  Lord '  «*««- 
Himself  hath  said  by  His  own  mouth  in  the  Gospel  accord- r* 
ing  to  John,  /  have  sent  them  into  the  world,  and  for  their  Johni7, 
sakes  do  I  sanctify  Myself,  that  they  may  be  sanctified  in 
the  truth*.     In  saying  this  He  has  shewn  that  He  is  not  the2vi<?- 
sanctified,  but  the   Sanctifier ;    for  He  is  not  sanctified  byihesaur. 
other,   but   Himself    sanctifies   Himself,   that   we   may   be20'197 
sanctified  in  the  truth.     He  who  sanctifies  Himself  is  Lord 
of  sanctification.     How  then  does  this  take  place  ?    What 
does  He  mean  but  this  ?    "  I,  being  the  Father's  Word,  I 
give  to  Myself,  when  become  man,  the  Spirit ;   and  Myself, 
become  man,  do  I  sanctify  in  Him,  that  henceforth  in  Me, 
who    am    Truth,    (for   Thy    Word   is   Truth,)    all    may   be 

2.  If  then  for  our  sake  He  sanctifies  Himself,  and  does  §•  47. 
this  when  He  becomes  man,  it  is  very  plain  that  the  Spirit's 
descent  on  Him  in  Jordan,  was  a  descent  upon  us,  because  of 
His  bearing  our  body.     And  it  did  not  take  place  for  pro- 
motion3 to  the  Word,  but  again  for  our  sanctification,  that  3* 
we  might  share  His  anointing,  and  of  us  it  might  be  said, 
Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  God's  Temple,  and  the  Spirit  ofi  Cor.3, 
God  dwelleth  in  you  ?     For  when  the  Lord,  as  man,  was 16' 
washed  in  Jordan,  it  was  we  who  were  washed  in  Him  and 
by  Him4.     And  when  He  received  the  Spirit,  we  it  was  who*  P™^ 
by  Him  were  made  recipients  of  It.     And  moreover  for  thistism,  2d 
reason,  not  as  Aaron  or  David  or  the  rest,  was  He  anointed  with  ^vPP- 
oil,  but  in  another  way  above  all  His  fellows,  with  the  oil  of  '293. 
gladness;  which  He  Himself  interprets  to  be  the  Spirit,  say- 
ing by  the  Prophet,   The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  Me,  jbai.  61, 

248        TJie  Christ  is  tlie  man  anointed  by  the  Word. 

Disc,  because  the  Lord  hath  anointed  Me;    as  also  the  Apostle 

1: has   said,  How  God  anointed  Him   with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

38.*  'When  then  were  these  things  spoken  of  Him  but  when 
He  came  in  the  flesh  and  was  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  the 
Spirit  descended  on  Him  ?  And  indeed  the  Lord  Himself 

Johni6,  said,  The  Spirit  shall  take  of  Mine ;  and  I  will  send  Him; 

20'  22.  an^  to  -^is  disciples,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
notwithstanding,  He  who,  as  the  Word  and  Radiance  of 
the  Father,  gives  to  others,  now  is  said  to  be  sanctified, 
because  now  He  has  become  man,  and  the  Body  that  is 
sanctified  is  His.  From  Him  then  we  have  begun  to  receive 

i  John  the   unction  and  the  seal,  John  saying,  And  ye   have  an 

Eph.'i,  unction  from  the  Holy  One ;  and  the  Apostle,  And  ye  were 
sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise.  Therefore  because 
of  us  and  for  us  are  these  words. 

3.  What  advance  then  of  promotion,  and  reward  of  virtue 
or  generally  of  conduct,  is  proved  from  this  in  our  Lord's 
instance  ?  For  if  He  was  not  God,  and  then  had  become 
God,  if  not  being  King  He  was  preferred  to  the  Kingdom, 
your  reasoning  would  have  had  some  faint  plausibility. 
But  if  He  is  God  and  the  throne  of  His  kingdom  is  ever- 
lasting, in  what  way  could  God  advance  ?  or  what  was  there 
wanting  to  Him  who  was  sitting  on  His  Father's  throne  ? 
And  if,  as  the  Lord  Himself  has  said,  the  Spirit  is  His,  and 
takes  of  His,  and  He  sends  It,  it  is  not  the  Word,  considered 

1 P-  24°j  as  the  Word l  and  Wisdom,  who  is  anointed  with  the  Spirit 
which  He  Himself  gives,  but  the  flesh  assumed  by  Him 
which  is  anointed  in  Him  and  by  Himb;  that  the  sanctifi- 

b  Elsewhere  Athan.  says  that  our  sanctifying  by  an  energy  as  the  other 
Lord's  Godhead  was  the  immediate  Christs  [anointed]  but  by  a  presence 
anointing  or  chrism  of  the  manhood  He  of  Him  whole  who  anointed,  SXtv  reu 
assumed.  "  God  needed  not  the  anoint-  xficvrtt ;  whence  it  came  to  pass  that 
ing,  nor  was  the  anointing  made  without  what  anointed  was  called  man  and  what 
God;  but  God  both  applied  it,  and  also  was  anointed  was  made  God."  Orat.  30. 
received  it  in  that  body  which  was  20.  "  He  Himself  anointed  Himself- 
capable  of  it."  in  Apollin.  ii.  3.  and  <ro  anointing  as  God  the  body  with  His  God- 
X,([ifff*.tt,  \yu  o  X'oyos,  ro  Si  %£if0iv  v-r  head,  and  anointed  as  man."  Damasc. 
iftou  o  u*0£u<>ros.  Orat.  iv.  §.  36.  rid.  F.  O.  iii.  3.  Dei  Filius,  sicut  pluvia  in 
Origen.  Periarch.  ii.  6.  n.  4.  And  S.  vellus,  totodivinitatisunguento  nostram 
Greg.  Naz.  still  more  expressly,  and  se  fuditin  carnem.  Chrysolog.  Serm.  60. 
from  the  same  text  as  Athan.  "  The  It  is  more  common,  however,  to  con- 
Father  anointed  Him  <  with  the  oil  of  sider  that  the  anointing  was  the  descent 
gladness  above  His  fellows,'  anointing  of  the  Spirit,  as  Athan.  says  at  the 
the  manhood  with  the  Godhead."  Orat.  beginning  of  this  section,  according  to 
x.  fin.  Again,  "  This  [the  Godhead]  Luke  iv.  18.  Acts  x,  38. 
is  the  anointing  of  the  manhood,  not 

TJie  Word,  before  His  incarnation,  dispensed  the  Spirit.  249 

cation  coming  to  the  Lord  as  man,  may  come  to  all  men  CHAP. 
from  Him.     For   not  of  Itself,  saith   He,  doth  the    Spirit    XIL 
speak,  but  the  Word  is  He  who  gives  It  to  the  worthy.     For 
this  is  like  the  passage  considered  above  ;  for  as  the  Apostle 
has  written,  Who  existing  in  form  of  God  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  but  humbled  Himself,  and 
took  a  servant's  form,  so  David  celebrates  the  Lord,  as  the 
everlasting  God  and  King,  but  sent  to  us  and  assuming  our 
body  which    is  mortal.      For  this    is    his    meaning   in  the 
Psalm,  All  Thy  garments"  smell  of  myrrh,  aloes,  and  cassia;  Ps.  45, 
and  it  is  represented  by  Nicodemus  and  by  Mary's  company, 9* 
when  he  came  bringing  a  mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes,  about  Johni9, 
an  hundred  pounds  weight ;  and  they  the  spices  which  £/'<?*/ Luke24 
had  prepared  for  the  burial  of  the  Lord's  body.  *• 

4.  What  advancement1  then  was  it  to  the  Immortal  to  have  §.  48. 
assumed  the  mortal  ?  or  what  promotion  is  it  to  the  Ever-1"^*"™ 
lasting  to  have  put  on  the  temporal  ?  what  reward  can  be 
great  to  the  Everlasting  God  and  King  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father  1  See  ye  not,  that  this  too  was  done  and  written 
because  of  us  and  for  us,  that  us  who  are  mortal  and  tem- 
poral, the  Lord,  become  man,  might  make  immortal,  and 
bring  into  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  Blush  ye 
not,  speaking  lies  against  the  divine  oracles  ?  For  when  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  had  been  among  us.  we  indeed  were  pro- 
moted, as  rescued  from  sin;  but  He  is  the  same2:  nor  did2P-23> 

_.   -  note  fi» 

He  alter,  when   He   became    man,  (to  repeat  what  I  haveinfra, 
said,)  but,  as  has  been  written,  Tlie  Word  of  God  abidethfor^'^ 
ever.     Surely  as,  before  His  becoming  man,  He,  the  Word,  8.  xoya? 
dispensed  to  the  saints  the  Spirit  as  His  own3,  so  also  when/1'"'1" 
made  man,  He  sanctifies  all  by  the  Spirit  and  says  to  His ^236, 
Disciples,  Receive  ye  the  Holy   Ghost.     And  He  gave  to 
Moses  and  the  other   seventy ;    and   through    Him  David 
prayed  to  the  Father,  saying,  Take  not   Thy  Holy  Spirit  ft-  61, 
from  me.     On  the  other  hand,  when  made  man,  He  said,  Jo'hnl5> 
/  will  send  to  you  the  Paraclete,  the  Spirit  of  truth ;  and  26. 
He  sent  Him,  He,  the  Word  of  God,  as  being  faithful. 

c  Our  Lord's  manhood  is  spoken  of  the  high  priest's  garment,  but  remain- 
as  a  garment;  more  distinctly  after-  ing  the  same,  was  but  clothed  &c.  Orat. 
wards,  "  As  Aaron  was  himself,  and  ii.  8.  On  the  Apollinarian  ahuse  of 
did  not  change  on  putting  round  him  the  idea,  vid.  note  in  loc. 


1  Cyril. 
20.  p. 

250     Man's  nature  changed  in  the  Unchangeable  Word. 

5.  Therefore  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  for  ever,  remaining  unalterable,  and  at  once  gives  and 
receives,  giving  as  God's  Word,  receiving  as  man.  It  is  not 
the  Word  then,  viewed  as  the  Word,  that  is  promoted ;  for 
He  had  all  things  and  has  them  always;  but  men, who  have  in 
Him  and  through  Him  their  origin d  of  receiving  them.  For, 
when  He  is  now  said  to  be  anointed  in  a  human  respect,  we 
it  is  who  in  Him  are  anointed ;  since  also,  when  He  is  bap- 
tized, we  it  is  who  in  Him  are  baptized.  But  on  all  these 
things  the  Saviour  throws  much  light,  when  He  says  to  the 
Father,  And  the  glory  ivhich  Thou  gavest  Me,  I  have  given 
to  them,  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  We  are  one.  Because 
of  us  then  He  asked  for  glory,  and  the  words  occur,  took 
and  gave  and  highly  exalted,  that  we  might  take,  and  to  us 
might  be  given,  and  we  might  be  exalted,  in  Him ;  as  also  for 
us  He  sanctifies  Himself,  that  we  might  be  sanctified  in  Him L. 

bootlessly,  saying  that,  since  we  adhere 
to  Him,  not  in  a  bodily  way,  but  rather 
by  faith  and  the  affection  of  love  accord- 
ing to  the  Law,  therefore  He  has  called, 
not  His  own  flesh  the  vine ,  but  rather  the 
Godhead?"  in  Joann.  10. p. 863, 4.  And 
Nyssen  :  "  As  they  who  have  taken  poi- 
son,destroyitsdeadlypowerbysome  other 
preparation. . .  .so  when  we  have  tasted 
what  destroys  our  nature,  we  have  need 
of  that  instead  which  restores  what  was 
destroyed. . .  .But  what  is  this?  nothing 
else  than  that  Body  which  has  been 
proved  to  be  mightier  than  death,  and 
was  the  beginning,  xarv$a<ra,  of  our  life. 
For  a  little  leaven,"  &c.  Orat.  Catech. 
37.  Decocta  quasi  per  ollam  carnis  nos- 
trae  cruditate,  sanctificavit  in  geternum 
Of  course  in  such  statements  nothing 
material  is  implied  ;  or,  as  Hooker  says, 
"  The  mixture  of  His  bodily  substance 
with  ours  is  a  thing  which  the  ancient 
Fathers  disclaim.  Yet  the  mixture  of 
His  flesh  with  ours  they  speak  of,  to 
signify  what  our  very  bodies  through 
mystical  conjunction  receive  from  that 
vital  efficacy  which  we  know  to  be  in 
His,  and  from  bodily  mixtures  they  bor- 
row divers  similitudes  rather  to  declare 
the  truth  than  the  manner  of  coherence 
between  His  sacred  and  the  sanctified 
bodies  of  saints."  Eccl.  Pol.  v.  56.  §.  10. 
But  without  some  explanation  of  this 
nature,  language  such  as  S.  Athana- 
sius's  in  the  text  seems  a  mere  matter 
of  words,  vid.  infr.  §.  50  fin. 

d  The  word  origin,  «££«,  implies  the 
doctrine,  more  fully  brought  out  in  other 
passages  of  the  Fathers,  that  our  Lord 
has  deigned  to  become  an  instrumental 
cause,as  it  maybe  called, of  the  life  of  each 
individual  Christian.  For  at  first  sight  it 
may  be  objected  to  the  whole  course  of 
Athan.'s  argument  thus  ; — What  con- 
nection is  there  between  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  Christ's  manhood  and  ours  ?  how 
does  itprove  that  human  nature  issancti- 
fied  because  a  particular  specimen  of  it 
was  sanctified  inHimPS.Chrysostom  ex- 
plains; "Heisborn  of  our  substance  :you 
will  say, l  This  does  not  pertain  to  all ;' 
yea,  to  all.  He  mingles  (ava^/yviwv) 
Himself  with  the  faithful  individually, 
through  the  mysteries,  and  whom  He 
has  begotten  those  He  nurses  from 
Himself,  not  puts  them  out  to  other 
hands, "&c.  Horn.  82.  in  Matt.  5.  And 
just  before,  "  It  sufficed  not  for  Him 
to  be  made  man,  to  be  scourged,  to  be 
sacrificed ;  but  He  assimilates  us  to 
Him  (ivaQvgti  tKvrbv  fift7v)  nor  merely  by 
faith,  but  really,  has  He  made  us  His 
body."  Again,  "  That  we  are  com- 
mingled (iva.ttsgK<r0uftiv)  into  that  flesh, 
not  merely  through  love,  but  really,  is 
broughtaboutbymeansof  that  food  which 
He  has  bestowed  upon  us."  Horn.  4C.  in 
Joann.3.  And  so  S.  Cyril  writes  against 
Nestorius :  "  Since  we  have  proved 
that  Christ  is  the  Vine,  and  we 
branches  as  adhering  to  a  commu- 
nion with  Him,  not  spiritual  merely  but 
bodily,  why  clamours  he  against  us  thus 

The  Wordnot  anointed, and  so  God;  butGod,andso  anointedSS  1 

6.  But  if  they  take  advantage  of  the  word  wherefore,  as  CHAP. 
connected  with  the  passage  in  the  Psalm,  Wherefore  God, 
even  Thy  God,  hath  anointed  Thee,  for  their  own  purposes,  *'  ***' 
let    these    novices    in    Scripture    and    masters  in    irreligion 
know,  that,  as  before,  the  word  wherefore  does  not  imply 
reward  of  virtue  or  conduct  in  the  Word,  but  the  reason  wrhy 
He  came  down  to  us,  and